Roseanne canceled by ABC

[fredtoast]

(05-31-2018, 12:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You have 0 idea if EVERY black person is offended by Rosanne's comments. And I saw nothing in her comments that suggested all black people are apes. But as long as there are folks like you and "everyone" that keep telling folks what they think, given to hyperbole,  and how some are less than others; then we'll never be equal. 

It's not folks like me.  It is the people on "chimpout".

Got a link to a black person who is not offended by being called a monkey?

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2018, 12:18 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is nothing "historical" about it.

Check out the website "Chimpout", and tell me there is no longer a racial element to comparing black people to apes.

Sticking your head in the sand and denying reality will not solve anything.

Why the hell would anybody know about these obscure websites; let alone, bring them into rational conversation? It is amazing to me that some folks even know about such places.

If actively exploring the fringe is keeping my head out of the sand then consider my head neck deep in it. 

[fredtoast]

(05-31-2018, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Why the hell would anybody know about these obscure websites;  let alone, bring them into rational conversation? It is amazing to me that some folks even know about such places.

If actively exploring the fringe is keeping my head out of the sand then consider my head neck deep in it. 

You can brag all you want about being willfully ignorant, but that does not change reality.

Denying racism exists does not eliminate racism.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2018, 12:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You can brag all you want about being willfully ignorant, but that does not change reality.

Denying racism exists does not eliminate racism.

Who the hell denied racism exists? Nor have I claimed to be willfully ignorant, It's just I don't peruse such sites as the one your quoted, I actually have 0 idea how folks would care of such sites. 

OK that last part was unearnest; I know exactly why folks would care about such fringe sites.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

There is no defense for Roseanne at all and we all knew that this would be connected to Trump somehow and then the back and forth about hypocrisy and why so-n-so wasn't treated the same way.

Just like Pelosi defending the animals that is MS-13, while no politician will defend Roseanne I'm sure there will be some whack job pundit who will defend her for some reason.

But like I said earlier in this thread, maybe the show will kill her off and continue on, call it "The Conners" or something. 

[JustWinBaby]

***** unbelievable.

How does this go 5+ pages? Seriously. Most of you need a major reality check. I'm kinda shocked this is 2+ days of the news cycle. That's the world of identiy politics and counter-BS we live in now.

[fredtoast]

(05-31-2018, 05:26 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: ***** unbelievable.

How does this go 5+ pages?  Seriously.  Most of you need a major reality check.  I'm kinda shocked this is 2+ days of the news cycle.  That's the world of identiy politics and counter-BS we live in now.

President of the United States is newsworthy even if it is for stupid shit.  Everything he does is tied to promoting his agenda.

[hollodero]

(05-31-2018, 02:50 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Just like Pelosi defending the animals that is MS-13, while no politician will defend Roseanne I'm sure there will be some whack job pundit who will defend her for some reason.

What exactly did Pelosi say to defend MS-13 members specifically?
Or that she, as Trump says, "loves" MS-13?

(To be clear, maybe she did and I didn't notice, hence the question. No sarcasm [yet].)

(05-31-2018, 05:26 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: ***** unbelievable.

How does this go 5+ pages?  Seriously.  Most of you need a major reality check.  I'm kinda shocked this is 2+ days of the news cycle.  That's the world of identiy politics and counter-BS we live in now.

Must be tough for you, living in this world full of way less brilliant people who look at things differently. Condolences.

[fredtoast]

(05-31-2018, 08:43 AM)hollodero Wrote: What exactly did Pelosi say to defend MS-13 members specifically?
Or that she, as Trump says, "loves" MS-13?

(To be clear, maybe she did and I didn't notice, hence the question. No sarcasm [yet].)

Pelosi began by saying, “Some of us who are attracted to the political arena, to government and public service” believe “we are all God’s children.”

“There is a spark of divinity among every person on earth, and we all have to recognize that as we respect the dignity and worth of every person,” Pelosi continued.

The House minority leader then added: “So when the president of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, ‘These aren’t people, these are animals,’ you have to wonder, does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”




So then all the people who were pissed that anyone would accuse Trump of calling them animals attacked Pelosi for saying they were humans.  Makes perfect sense, right?  They say Trump would never call them animals, but when Pelosi says they are not animals she is "defending them".  These rubes don't even stop to think what they are crying about.  They just repeat whatever they are told on Fox News.

[hollodero]

(05-31-2018, 08:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Basically she said they were humans.

Pelosi began by saying, “Some of us who are attracted to the political arena, to government and public service” believe “we are all God’s children.”

“There is a spark of divinity among every person on earth, and we all have to recognize that as we respect the dignity and worth of every person,” Pelosi continued.

The House minority leader then added: “So when the president of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, ‘These aren’t people, these are animals,’ you have to wonder, does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”

OK thanks.
She loves MS-13 then, clearly. 

(Disclaimer, I am still against that deliberate misunderstanding of Trump's words and think that specific part of the criticism is justified.)

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2018, 08:43 AM)hollodero Wrote: 1. What exactly did Pelosi say to defend MS-13 members specifically?
Or that she, as Trump says, "loves" MS-13?

(To be clear, maybe she did and I didn't notice, hence the question. No sarcasm [yet].)



2. Must be tough for you, living in this world full of way less brilliant people who look at things differently. Condolences.

1. She basically said there are good people on both sides. Who could possibly take issue with such a point of view?

2. That no sarcasm thing didn't last long 

[hollodero]

(05-31-2018, 09:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. She basically said there are good people on both sides. Who could possibly take issue with such a point of view?

I don't think she compared MS-13 members to non MS-13 members and claimed there are good people on both sides. If she did, I'd like to see that quote.

(05-31-2018, 09:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. That no sarcasm thing didn't last long 

Well, sure. If the "Pelosi defends MS-13" stance is based on her calling every person on earth a human being, then sure that triggers sarcasm. As does Trump's "Pelosi loves MS-13" piece I just stumbled upon.
If she said anything else in that regard I've yet to see, then I cut back on it. Also, again, this "Trump calls all illegal immigrants animals" stance still sparks my honest critizism too, so it's not like I would hand out biased sarcasm.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2018, 09:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think she compared MS-13 members to non MS-13 members and claimed there are good people on both sides. If she did, I'd like to see that quote.



Well, sure. If the "Pelosi defends MS-13" stance is based on her calling every person on earth a human being, then sure that triggers sarcasm. As does Trump's "Pelosi loves MS-13" piece I just stumbled upon.
If she said anything else in that regard I've yet to see, then I cut back on it. Also, again, this "Trump calls all illegal immigrants animals" stance still sparks my honest critizism too, so it's not like I would hand out biased sarcasm.

Fred provided the quote: "We are all God's people". 

It is no different than what Trump said about Charolettesville. Personally I have no issue with either quote; I'm just presenting the facts and trying to illustrate how folks are extremely biased in their persecution.  

[fredtoast]

"Trump would never call MS-13 members animals. That is just left wing media BS!!!"

"Hey, did you here that Pelosi said MS-13 members are not animals?"

"Of course, that is the way the left wing defends them. It's outrageous to say they are not animals!!!"

[hollodero]

(05-31-2018, 09:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Fred provided the quote: "We are all God's people". 

It is no different than what Trump said about Charolettesville. Personally I have no issue with either quote; I'm just presenting the facts and trying to illustrate how folks are extremely biased in their persecution.  

No it's not. "God's people" is very different from "good people". And so is saying "good people on both sides". If Trump had said "there are human beings on both sides and they are all God's people", I'd say you have a point, but that's not what happened with Charlottesville.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2018, 09:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: No it's not. "God's people" is very different from "good people". And so is saying "good people on both sides". If Trump had said "there are human beings on both sides and they are all God's people", I'd say you have a point, but that's not what happened with Charlottesville.

I guess we'll just have to disagree if you assert calling someone a child of God does not imply a level of godliness and innocence. 

Not overly concerned if you think I have a point or not. 

[hollodero]

(05-31-2018, 09:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess we'll just have to disagree if you assert calling someone a child of God does not imply a level of godliness and innocence. 

Isn't every human being, including the most vile ones, a "child of God"?

Again, had Pelosi said "there are good people within MS-13", I'd get the critizism. If Trump had said "all human beings, including Nazis, are childs of God", I'd say ok let's not overreact to these words. But since this wasn't what was said, I can't see the equivalency of those two events.

(05-31-2018, 09:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not overly concerned if you think I have a point or not. 

I figured.
Not sure why it's necessary to tell me that though.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2018, 09:39 AM)hollodero Wrote: Isn't every human being, including the most vile ones, a "child of God"?

Again, had Pelosi said "there are good people within MS-13", I'd get the critizism. If Trump had said "all human beings, including Nazis, are childs of God", I'd say ok let's not overreact to these words. But since this wasn't what was said, I can't see the equivalency of those two events.



I figured.
Not sure why it's necessary to tell me that though.

In my opinion sure we are all children of god and with that connotation there is good in everyone of us. And if you want someone to recognoze that you call a human a Child of God; otherwise, just call them a person.

IMO, there is no difference in the words of either. They are both saying let's not paint with such a broad brush. I cannot help that you cannot see the equivalency in the 2 statements; nor can you see the hypocrisy in some folks reactions to either.  

As I said I have no problem with Nancy saying we are all children of God, nor did I have issue with Trump saying the were good people on both sides. 

I'll have to take you and others at your word as to what you would be OK with Trump saying. 

[hollodero]

(05-31-2018, 09:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: In my opinion sure we are all children of god and with that connotation there is good in everyone of us. And if you want someone to recognoze that you call a human a Child of God; otherwise, just call them a person.

IMO, there is no difference in the words of either. They are both saying let's not paint with such a broad brush. I cannot help that you cannot see the equivalency in the 2 statements; nor can you see the hypocrisy in some folks reactions to either.  

As I said I have no problem with Nancy saying we are all children of God, nor did I have issue with Trump saying the were good people on both sides. 

I'll have to take you and others at your word as to what you would be OK with Trump saying. 

You don't have to take me at my word. If you percieve me as someone reflexively slamming everything Trump says just because I feel like slamming Trump, so be it. :) 

I just have a feeling that most people wouldn't equate saying "God's children" to saying "good people". Everyone is God's child, that doesn't mean everyone is a good person. They could turn into a better person in the future through change and redemption maybe, by changing their ways, there's that potential, what to me as a non-Christian is what "God's children" means, among other things.
 
"Good people" is what "God's children" can become, it's certainly not what they are right now. What Trump said about Charlottesville wasn't about every marching Nazi and white supremacist having that potential as human beings to change. He defended them as they were, and at least didn't mind a bit to be understood that way. David Duke thanked him for his words, and Trump didn't reject him. If a MS-13 leader came out and thanked Pelosi and Pelosi wouldn't react, then yeah I'd see an equivalence.

But I'm certainly emotional about that, but that's not so much about Trump, but mainly about Nazis. I really hate Nazis, hate them on a MS-13 gangbanger level and maybe even beyond. I still think they are human beings though. A Christian, I figure, might say "they are God's children too", and yeah I'd thought it a bit strange if Trump had said that, but I would not have taken that much issue. Take me at my word :)

[BmorePat87]

(05-29-2018, 11:10 PM)Benton Wrote: I was a big rand supporter up until the recent tax deal.

Cutting taxes to top earners and increasing the deficit? He’s as bad as the rest of them.

I liked Rand and his pops until they said a guy who supported bans on oral sex was a more "liberty" candidate than a libertarian who suggested taxing people based on their use of roads rather than taxing all people equally.