Skip to main content

9,076 replies

Say Something Completely Random And Off Topic

G g-manMember
napacat posted:
g-man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:

This discussion is getting pretty deep. When can we go back to random and off-topic comments, and picking on Trump and those who love him?   Where are Mimik, w + a and PH when you need them? 

Happy to comply!  Still happy with Trump and current state of affairs.  No mention of the Smolett case here yet?  Sad.  I never heard of him before this...yet Van Jones says he is the Jackie Robinson of the day...oh God, that is a giant overstatement.  Good for the Chicago PD...they really shone brightly this week...especially today.

Smolett?  you mean the guy who faked an emergency because he couldn't get enough money for something?

Wait.. that sounds oddly familiar.

You know who else we didnt talk about?  Christopher Paul Hasson.

"Hasson also expressed admiration for Russia. "Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes or any land that despises the west's liberalism," he wrote in the draft email. Prosecutors say during the past two years he had regularly searched online for pro-Russian as well as neo-Nazi literature."

What happened napacat?  how come you didnt talk about him?  Selective vision?  Sad.

Gman,


Happy to talk about that nut job Hasson.  And the strongest possible action should be taken that the law allows.  Not a problem with a life sentence.  Same for the Alabama ISIS wife who wants to return...no way should she come back to the U.S.  

okay, there we caught up on current "news"?   see how boring that was?  it offered no insight/no depth of discussions nor any other stimulating thought except to note.

G g-manMember
winetarelli posted:

https://people.com/books/dr-se...-racist-problematic/

 

I had to double check that it wasn’t The Onion. 

Dr seuss certainly had a change of heart later on in his career, (as all intelligent folks i hope would) from my understanding of his still fascinating story of how he came about writing and drawing.  Horton hear's a who though was most certainly satirical representation of racism, as you can see his later political newsprint sketches showing what he really felt.

https://nordic.businessinsider...preset=article-image

However there is no question how he originally felt about foreignors earlier on in his career and i can certainly see being caught up in a real war, the pull of nationalism is quite strong.

https://library.ucsd.edu/specc...owar/#ark:bb6792686z

Personally, i don't think it's fair to either dr. seuss nor many of history's most famous authors by viewing them with a modern 20/20 hindsight without understanding the context in which the story was being told.  The stories are there to be told, but on the flip side, there's nothing wrong with requesting current teachers to explain about stereotyping and /or prejudices that went on during the period the story was written.

winetarelliwinetarelliMember
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

https://people.com/books/dr-se...-racist-problematic/

 

I had to double check that it wasn’t The Onion. 

Dr seuss certainly had a change of heart later on in his career, (as all intelligent folks i hope would) from my understanding of his still fascinating story of how he came about writing and drawing.  Horton hear's a who though was most certainly satirical representation of racism, as you can see his later political newsprint sketches showing what he really felt.

https://nordic.businessinsider...preset=article-image

However there is no question how he originally felt about foreignors earlier on in his career and i can certainly see being caught up in a real war, the pull of nationalism is quite strong.

https://library.ucsd.edu/specc...owar/#ark:bb6792686z

Personally, i don't think it's fair to either dr. seuss nor many of history's most famous authors by viewing them with a modern 20/20 hindsight without understanding the context in which the story was being told.  The stories are there to be told, but on the flip side, there's nothing wrong with requesting current teachers to explain about stereotyping and /or prejudices that went on during the period the story was written.

Most Dr. Seuss books are about inclusion and tolerance or other liberal values. I’m thinking of The Lorax (environmentalism), The Butter Battle Book (world peace and non-demonization of other cultures, as well as being opposed to nuclear weapons), Green Eggs and Ham (experimentation), How the Grinch Stole Christmas (love and inclusion over consumerism), The Cat in the Hat (an ode to mischief).  And, of course, you point out that Horton Hears a Who is broadly understood and intended as anti-racist. (His wartime work is obviously an issue and I am very thankful he had a change of heart.  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

Of his canonical work, I do question whether whatever people think they see in some of his most beloved books is there; or even if it is (narrator: it isn’t), if it would ever be picked up by a 6 year old, especially in light of all the positive and overt messages of his books.

Some literature is genuinely racist. But anyone can find anything “problematic” if looking. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t terrible racism still in the country. Just today, for example, the U.S. Justice Department is declining to persue civil rights charges against the Tulsa cop who shot and killed an unarmed Black man with his hands up — and it is caught on video. Racism and xenophobia, generally, but specifically anti-Black racism is the greatest challenge/threat/problem in this country, imo. Well, that and this President and his enablers. (Hasn’t directly caused a catastrophe yet, but his assaults on decency, tolerance and inclusion, truth, the free press, coherent thought, civil rights, and hisobvious desire for dictatorial rule are... problematic.)  But spending energy dissecting these children’s books, at least most of which have overt messages of love, experimentation, and inclusion, to me says a lot more about the person writing the article than about Dr. Seuss. 

Last edited by winetarelli
winetarelliwinetarelliMember
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

G g-manMember
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

winetarelliwinetarelliMember
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

Hmm. Ok, maybe then the distinction I would make is age. I think the scope of how literature is viewed by those in the process of learning to read is probably different from how it is fully capable of being viewed at age 8 or 9. I’m not saying compexity of people or the existence of racism or our country’s past bad acts should not be taught or discussed.  (And, certainly, when discussing things in history class it is vital to discuss public sentiment; and literature and paintings are likely to play a vital role in that.)

Last edited by winetarelli
G g-manMember
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

Hmm. Ok, maybe then the distinction I would make is age. I think the scope of how literature is viewed by those in the process of learning to read is probably different from at age 8 or 9. I’m not saying compexity of people or the existence of racism or our country’s past bad acts should not be taught or discussed. 

my greatest fear is having my young ones being approached on the subject from a stranger and not knowing how to respond or having an understanding when i'm not around to talk to them about it.  

winetarelliwinetarelliMember

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

G g-manMember
winetarelli posted:

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

Of course!  I've believe the first time i met you almost 10? years ago,  I recall enjoying random conversation.

No, not every subject lesson / course can nor should be able racism.  It's not even about a proper distinct discussion about racism with the child.  It's as simple as "do people really look like that?"  and the kid will most likely say "no that's silly"  And that alone, goes a long way in separating caricature vs ingrained stereotyping.

winetarelliwinetarelliMember
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

Of course!  I've believe the first time i met you almost 10? years ago,  I recall enjoying random conversation.

No, not every subject lesson / course can nor should be able racism.  It's not even about a proper distinct discussion about racism with the child.  It's as simple as "do people really look like that?"  and the kid will most likely say "no that's silly"  And that alone, goes a long way in separating caricature vs ingrained stereotyping.

Totally fair. And of course I loved hanging out with you, too!  That was a great night!

 

Last edited by winetarelli
winetarelliwinetarelliMember
seaquam posted:
winetarelli posted:

I didn’t fuck my cat.

 

 

Well... I guess that makes you a better man than I.

My “Not involved in human trafficking” t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Credit to Mike Ginn, whomever he is, for that one.)

Yes, this is an Internet thing.  Check Twitter if you dare. 2019: the stupidest year. 

bmanbmanMember

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

N napacatMember
bman posted:

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

Ok...I’ll bite.  Would have been much wiser to keep his mouth shut.  That said...he does not like McCain ar all...and the fact that MCCain peddled the fake dossier probably pissed him off more.  He does not have to like him because he was a war hero...but some things are better left unsaid.

Now...no collusion from anyone within the campaign (previous indictments show that) and according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  Total BS from the get go...let’s get to the real people behind this sham.

bmanbmanMember
napacat posted:
bman posted:

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

Ok...I’ll bite.  Would have been much wiser to keep his mouth shut.  That said...he does not like McCain ar all...and the fact that MCCain peddled the fake dossier probably pissed him off more.  He does not have to like him because he was a war hero...but some things are better left unsaid.

Now...no collusion from anyone within the campaign (previous indictments show that) and according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  Total BS from the get go...let’s get to the real people behind this sham.

My point was just about Trump's despicable attack on McCain, but since you raised the Mueller report, I'll get to that in a minute.  Meanwhile, you made a factual error in saying that McCain "peddled"  the dossier in question.  Here is what actually happened, according to the Arizona AG (a Republican):  "He got the information and he read it and it's pretty explosive. He immediately delivered it to the FBI and said this is for you all to deal with. That's what a statesman does. That's what a good American does. And that's what John McCain did. "  No "peddling" involved.  He received a document worthy of investigation by law enforcement on its merits and did the right thing with it.

As for the Mueller report, you made another factual error, Napa.  You said there was no obstruction but that's not what the report said:  

""Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.""

It's pretty obvious to everyone Napa, from the terminology you use above, that you take your so-called "facts" from Fox, or perhaps Breitbart and other right-wing Trump sycophants rather than from credible objective sources.  You may wish to check out reporting from the BBC, CBC or another foreign source that is not in the camp of either side of the American political divide.

Finally, how is something that has led the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people, and dozens of Russians, BS or a sham?  Any patriotic American would be pleased to see these attacks on democracy and criminals exposed.  Which says a lot about your hero Trump!

Last edited by bman
flwinoflwinoMember
irwin posted:

The Mueller report will be hashed over and hashed over.  The Dems will complain and the Republicans will praise.  This is all sideshow.

The real issue is the destruction of our relationships with our allies, the tariff wars, the increasing federal deficit.  "It's the economy, stupid."

Right to the point and summary.   Our diplomacy sucks.  So many mad at us, and many countries do not even have ambassadors.  Not that many folks that belong to Mar-A-Lago

N napacatMember
bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

Ok...I’ll bite.  Would have been much wiser to keep his mouth shut.  That said...he does not like McCain ar all...and the fact that MCCain peddled the fake dossier probably pissed him off more.  He does not have to like him because he was a war hero...but some things are better left unsaid.

Now...no collusion from anyone within the campaign (previous indictments show that) and according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  Total BS from the get go...let’s get to the real people behind this sham.

My point was just about Trump's despicable attack on McCain, but since you raised the Mueller report, I'll get to that in a minute.  Meanwhile, you made a factual error in saying that McCain "peddled"  the dossier in question.  Here is what actually happened, according to the Arizona AG (a Republican):  "He got the information and he read it and it's pretty explosive. He immediately delivered it to the FBI and said this is for you all to deal with. That's what a statesman does. That's what a good American does. And that's what John McCain did. "  No "peddling" involved.  He received a document worthy of investigation by law enforcement on its merits and did the right thing with it.

As for the Mueller report, you made another factual error, Napa.  You said there was no obstruction but that's not what the report said:  

""Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.""

It's pretty obvious to everyone Napa, from the terminology you use above, that you take your so-called "facts" from Fox, or perhaps Breitbart and other right-wing Trump sycophants rather than from credible objective sources.  You may wish to check out reporting from the BBC, CBC or another foreign source that is not in the camp of either side of the American political divide.

Finally, how is something that has led the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people, and dozens of Russians, BS or a sham?  Any patriotic American would be pleased to see these attacks on democracy and criminals exposed.  Which says a lot about your hero Trump!

Bman, there are a lot of things wrong with your post.  Peddling may have been the wrong word...but I don't think McCain had the document first.  It was a bunch of unsubstantiated drivel and was purely fake.  That document did not warrant investigation by law enforcement if they would have done any research and saw where it derived from, they would have disregarded it.

Correct that the Mueller report did not absolve of obstruction...however, if you read my post...I stated that the AG and Deputy AG concluded there was not enough information for a charge on obstruction.  

Lastly, your statement that this investigation led to the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people...none of the convictions had anything to do with Russian collusion. Don't mislead...a complete farce. 

T thistlintomMember

Mueller was acting as a prosecutor and did not come up with evidence of collusion with the Russians.  Will the Democrats stop their "investigations" or will they continue on attacking the President on this issue after two years of investigations?  I think we have had enough of this and it should stop.  Get on with the business of the country.

N napacatMember
thistlintom posted:

Mueller was acting as a prosecutor and did not come up with evidence of collusion with the Russians.  Will the Democrats stop their "investigations" or will they continue on attacking the President on this issue after two years of investigations?  I think we have had enough of this and it should stop.  Get on with the business of the country.

Well said...

bmanbmanMember
napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:
 

 according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.  

My point was just about Trump's despicable attack on McCain, but since you raised the Mueller report, I'll get to that in a minute.  Meanwhile, you made a factual error in saying that McCain "peddled"  the dossier in question.  Here is what actually happened, according to the Arizona AG (a Republican):  "He got the information and he read it and it's pretty explosive. He immediately delivered it to the FBI and said this is for you all to deal with. That's what a statesman does. That's what a good American does. And that's what John McCain did. "  No "peddling" involved.  He received a document worthy of investigation by law enforcement on its merits and did the right thing with it.

As for the Mueller report, you made another factual error, Napa.  You said there was no obstruction but that's not what the report said:  

""Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.""

It's pretty obvious to everyone Napa, from the terminology you use above, that you take your so-called "facts" from Fox, or perhaps Breitbart and other right-wing Trump sycophants rather than from credible objective sources.  You may wish to check out reporting from the BBC, CBC or another foreign source that is not in the camp of either side of the American political divide.

Finally, how is something that has led the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people, and dozens of Russians, BS or a sham?  Any patriotic American would be pleased to see these attacks on democracy and criminals exposed.  Which says a lot about your hero Trump!

Bman, there are a lot of things wrong with your post.  Peddling may have been the wrong word...but I don't think McCain had the document first.  It was a bunch of unsubstantiated drivel and was purely fake.  That document did not warrant investigation by law enforcement if they would have done any research and saw where it derived from, they would have disregarded it.

Correct that the Mueller report did not absolve of obstruction...however, if you read my post...I stated that the AG and Deputy AG concluded there was not enough information for a charge on obstruction.  

Lastly, your statement that this investigation led to the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people...none of the convictions had anything to do with Russian collusion. Don't mislead...a complete farce. 

Napa, you can't even read your own words?    You said; "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction" and now you deny saying it? It's right there for God's sake!  Have some intellectual integrity please!

As for the document, if it was fake the only way to know would be an investigation by law enforcement.  The information was assembled by a credible source (a former intelligence official if I recall correctly) whatever Fox news says, and included allegations that any law enforcement agency would feel it necessary to investigate.

As for your last statement above, wrong again.  Several were convicted for lying to Congress and/or law enforcement, and it seems pretty clear that those lies pertained to Russian collusion.  Why would they have lied if they didn't?  

In any case, the Mueller investigation is anything but a farce.  Even if it had revealed nothing it was necessary given the events that led to its creation.  Again, try watching other news sources to get a balanced view of things.  I don't get Fox news here in Canada (I could, but won't pay for the, umm, "privilege") but I do check out their website and Breitbart's too, from time to time.  I suggest you do the same with BBC or CBC or The Economist or some other objective source.  

PreviousNext

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×