Some Republicans vote against anti-bigotry resolution.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2019, 11:48 PM)Benton Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-White-House-bans-CNN-reporter-from-press-conference?highlight=white+house+bans

You're welcome to read the waffling at your leisure. You started with 'there's no proof the POTUS did anything' and transitioned to "POTUS is trying to host the President of the EU and work out a possible trade deal. Why the hell would we want someone interrupting this by asking questions about Russia?" and then "My desperation aside. I clearly stated in post #8 of this thread my opinions on him banning her; I cannot speak to Trump's motivation. I just introduced a recent news story germane to the topic of the OP. But how liberal of you to attack me instead of the words the lady said. "





That's not what you meant. Unless you're trying to pass off the 9/11 attacks as confidential info.


For a POTUS? Yeah, I would hope we'd have a cooler head and a better guide than someone who doesn't really even speak to the issue, just criticizing a peaceful protest of something he ... judging by comments like "they make a fortune doing what they love"... doesn't understand.

I've got little to no issue with Gaetz or Cruz calling for boycotts (although in Cruz's case I'm not sure he has), other than the fact that I don't think boycotting the NFL is fair in regard to how some teams handled the situation. Penalizing teams that didn't have kneelers would be as unfortunate as penalizing all media for partisan propaganda agencies.

End of the day, reps like Gaetz are representative of their people. If his people don't like what he says, they can vote him out. The POTUS is a different entity. Hell, the majority of people didn't even vote for the guy, but he still speaks for everyone. That's much different than speaking for a (relatively) tiny minority.

We really should focus on the subject instead of the poster (mods hate that), but if I must defend myself: You could have just saved a lot of time and admitted I never suggested I was OK with POTUS preventing any media agency from doing their job, but have 0 issue with pointing to specific agents.

Quick question: Did AOC call out the person that wrote the article or chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater? 

But let's add you to the rest of folks that know what I meant. No one should have a monopoly on that.

But we'll end it with our disagreeing on should elected officials advocate boycotting of private businesses because they don't like the way they operate.  

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2019, 06:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You most likely meant to ask what would I do if I felt there was a media outlet that was promoting hatred.  And my answer would be to speak out against the content. 

You would not do anything to prevent the promotion of hatred?

If it was me I would try to prevent it.  I think that would be in the best interest of the country and my constituents. Divisive, hate-filled rhetoric is causing a lot of problems in this country.

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2019, 12:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick question: Did AOC call out the person that wrote the article or chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater? 

Quick answer:  It is in the story you linked.  


She specifically was objecting to the front cover where the Post used images of the 9-11 attack just for a political attack.  

If this boycott was just over "disagreeing with" the Post she would never have waited this long.  They have been attacking her hard for a long time.

People have to remember that right now AOC is still just worried about playing well in her district.  On that level this was a shrewd move by her.  None of us have heard about the bodega boycott in the past but apparently it effected a lot of her constituents. 

AOC is still just 28.  She will not qualify for a Presidential election until 2028.  So she has a long time to thrive on her small local stage.

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2019, 03:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You would not do anything to prevent the promotion of hatred?

If it was me I would try to prevent it.  I think that would be in the best interest of the country and my constituents. Divisive, hate-filled rhetoric is causing a lot of problems in this country.

Reread what I wrote. The answer is there

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2019, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Reread what I wrote. The answer is there

I don't consider "speaking out against" to be "taking an action".

Speaking out only helps if the issue can be resolved by swaying the position of voters/consumers.  Without the actions taken by consumers or lawmakers elected by voters there is no change.

So in this case "speaking out" is a cop out.  It is doing nothing.  And I consider inaction in the face of something wrong (within my sphere of influence) to be the same as a bad action.

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2019, 04:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't consider "speaking out against" to be "taking an action".

Speaking out only helps if the issue can be resolved by swaying the position of voters/consumers.  Without the actions taken by consumers or lawmakers elected by voters there is no change.

So in this case "speaking out" is a cop out.  It is doing nothing.  And I consider inaction in the face of something wrong (within my sphere of influence) to be the same as a bad action.

Call it a "cop out" if you will but as an elected official I do not feel it would be my place to advocate to my constituents to boycott an organization because I feel strongly opposed to them. I would let my displeasure be know both to the public and the organization, but asked if I advocate boycotting I would state "That's not my role". 

Who knows maybe your action is bad action depending on your political bias. Perhaps I think CAIR is a terrorist organization by hosting such an event and allow such inflammatory words be spoken at their events. What should I direct my constituents to do?   

Are you cool with POTUS calling to boycott NFL games because he feels they allow players to disrespect the Nation and Flag? He most likely thinks not calling for it is inaction and thereby bad action.

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2019, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you cool with POTUS calling to boycott NFL games because he feels they allow players to disrespect the Nation and Flag?

Yes, but only because it is better than him using his official power to enact laws or rules to silence the players. I don't agree with his logic, but I never claimed he was violating their freedom of speech by suggesting a boycott the way you claimed AOC was violating the "freedom of the press".

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2019, 06:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, but only because it is better than him using his official power to enact laws or rules to silence the players. I don't agree with his logic, but I never claimed he was violating their freedom of speech by suggesting a boycott the way you claimed AOC was violating the "freedom of the press".

Noted that you are OK with POTUS calling to boycott the NFL because of folks kneeling. 

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2019, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Noted that you are OK with POTUS calling to boycott the NFL because of folks kneeling. 

Never said that.

I OPPOSE his position, but I don't consider his request for a boycott to be the government denying anyone the right to free speech.

Learn to read.

[CJD]

Do we wanna talk about Steve King saying he has better insight into what Jesus went through after his congressional rebuke?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/24/steve-king-censured-racist-remarks-1289097

[GMDino]

(04-24-2019, 03:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Do we wanna talk about Steve King saying he has better insight into what Jesus went through after his congressional rebuke?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/24/steve-king-censured-racist-remarks-1289097

[GMDino]

[BmorePat87]

(04-30-2019, 12:07 PM)GMDino Wrote:

I stopped on panel two when I realized that this comic was not going to be intellectual honest. 

[GMDino]

(04-30-2019, 12:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I stopped on panel two when I realized that this comic was not going to be intellectual honest. 

Oh!  So none of that happened? 

Darn comic! 

[BmorePat87]

(04-30-2019, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh!  So none of that happened? 

Darn comic! 

Was it suppose to be fictional? 

The majority of criticism, including the cover shown in the comic, was over what was seen as insensitive comments. They didn't suggest she was praising 9/11. 

[GMDino]

(04-30-2019, 12:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Was it suppose to be fictional? 

The majority of criticism, including the cover shown in the comic, was over what was seen as insensitive comments. They didn't suggest she was praising 9/11. 

Indeed.  Rather the comic went into how it grew from being upset over her being insensitive through the noise machine.  The average Joe going a step further, FOX news throwing wood on the fire, the POTUS adding to it and then everyone saying all that talk was no big deal anyway...

But to each their own I guess.

[BmorePat87]

(04-30-2019, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.  Rather the comic went into how it grew from being upset over her being insensitive through the noise machine.  The average Joe going a step further, FOX news throwing wood on the fire, the POTUS adding to it and then everyone saying all that talk was no big deal anyway...

But to each their own I guess.

Well, no the comic stated "her comments were immediately taken out of context" and then showed two people with the cover saying that the only conclusion to draw from the cover is that it is saying that she thinks 9/11 was good.

That is intellectually dishonest and completely twists the criticism to turn it into a Muslim thing. There certainly were people who do not like her for her religion and ethnicity, but being someone who spoke out against her words, it was not the biggest issue nor was it the issue with the NY Post. 

[GMDino]

(04-30-2019, 03:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well, no the comic stated "her comments were immediately taken out of context" and then showed two people with the cover saying that the only conclusion to draw from the cover is that it is saying that she thinks 9/11 was good.

That is intellectually dishonest and completely twists the criticism to turn it into a Muslim thing. There certainly were people who do not like her for her religion and ethnicity, but being someone who spoke out against her words, it was not the biggest issue nor was it the issue with the NY Post. 

That is completely honest about how some of the right winger voters saw it.  And it is certainly honest (as you say) that some people do not like her due to her religion.  It doesn't have to be the "biggest issue" it was the issue the comic focused on because how these things unfold thanks to skewed media and POTUS that loves stoking the fire.

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2019, 12:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:  They didn't suggest she was praising 9/11. 

What they said was that she refused to acknowledge that 9-11 was an act of terrorism by Muslims.

That was a complete lie.  Not the same lie as claiming she thought it was a "good thing", but are we really going to argue about which lie is better?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-30-2019, 03:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well, no the comic stated "her comments were immediately taken out of context" and then showed two people with the cover saying that the only conclusion to draw from the cover is that it is saying that she thinks 9/11 was good.

That is intellectually dishonest and completely twists the criticism to turn it into a Muslim thing. There certainly were people who do not like her for her religion and ethnicity, but being someone who spoke out against her words, it was not the biggest issue nor was it the issue with the NY Post. 

You're being consistent and logical here, which is why you're running into trouble.  The criticism was always about her minimizing the events of 9/11 with her, extremely poor, choice of words.  I don't recall anyone suggesting she thought 9/11 was a good thing.  I'm sure you could find a stray example of this, but, again, I don't recall seeing it.  The problem here is that you're not allowing yourself to be spoon fed the pablum that is actually attempting to achieve what it's purporting to mock, a deliberate twisting of events to achieve a partisan agenda.  Good on you for pointing it out.