The All Things Political Topic - new edition

[Chairchucker]

20 hours ago, Gromnir said:

am having no idea what the bud light story is 'bout as am only having seen it mentioned via on-line sources we don't consider to be newsworthy. has not been covered to any degree at npr/pbs, wapo or even cnn, so am not able to be bothered to educate our self further beyond a bare minimum. however...

A largely correct stance tbh.

Bud light did a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney. Dylan Mulvaney is trans. Conservatives got mad and performatively destroyed a bunch of Bud Light, declaring they would instead switch to Coors Light, a brand that has been supporting LGBT causes for years, or any number of other beers that are owned by the same company that owns Bud Light.

[Guard Dog]

Just throwing this out there. Buying a product to only destroy it afterwards is no different than buying it and drinking it. You still BOUGHT it. Just sayin. 

Guys at the VFW used to give me grief about my indifference to burning American flags. They (flag burners) bought the flag. It's their flag. If they want to burn it that isn't my business. If you steal MY flag and light it up, then we'll have a problem. 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Just throwing this out there. Buying a product to only destroy it afterwards is no different than buying it and drinking it. You still BOUGHT it. Just sayin. 

Guys at the VFW used to give me grief about my indifference to burning American flags. They (flag burners) bought the flag. It's their flag. If they want to burn it that isn't my business. If you steal MY flag and light it up, then we'll have a problem. 

its her _________, so why should i care if she burns it?

quran

hospital

copy of 1984

flag

dog

etc.

gonna suggest you are conflating different issues and am recommending you needs be careful how far you wanna take your analogy 'cause it results in the defense o' those book burnings am recalling you deride and it would also apply to michael vick.

whatever the specific protest issues may be, they do not end with a recognition o' property ownership. even when is a legal property right to dispose o' a thing, there might very well be reasons to consider if such destruction is wise. there is a legal right to burn maya angelou books in florida. we would hope @Guard Dog recognizes he has a moral duty to criticize the burning o' maya angelou books by floridians. 

again, am not genuine following the bud light story, so am not speaking specific to the issue at hand. even so, am recalling gd does, at times, overgeneralize to his detriment.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Gromnir]

do not read too much into the delay. however, am gonna admit our surprise fox hadn't made a concerted effort to settle before the release o' all the damning discovery we has become privy to these past months. in an ordinary billion dollar case (<-sarcasm) holding out for voir dire makes sense to us as typically jury selection is more outcome determinative than is evidence, lawyer skillz, or planetary alignments. even so, is no way fox were surprised to learn that emails, texts and depositions would serious hurt fox efforts to defend. and once the judge decided as a matter o' law that fox stories were making factual representations as 'posed to sharing newsworthy opinions o' trump, powell, giuliani and others...

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

21 hours ago, Gromnir said:

its her _________, so why should i care if she burns it?

quran

hospital

copy of 1984

flag

dog

etc.

gonna suggest you are conflating different issues and am recommending you needs be careful how far you wanna take your analogy 'cause it results in the defense o' those book burnings am recalling you deride and it would also apply to michael vick.

whatever the specific protest issues may be, they do not end with a recognition o' property ownership. even when is a legal property right to dispose o' a thing, there might very well be reasons to consider if such destruction is wise. there is a legal right to burn maya angelou books in florida. we would hope @Guard Dog recognizes he has a moral duty to criticize the burning o' maya angelou books by floridians. 

again, am not genuine following the bud light story, so am not speaking specific to the issue at hand. even so, am recalling gd does, at times, overgeneralize to his detriment.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I didn't hear about Angelou's books being burned. But I will point out if they bought the books they burned her estate still got the royalty. I think the author of the Harry Potter books went through that a while back and responded to a book burning with a quip along the lines of "thanks for your money".

As for the morality of it, that is in the eye of the beholder. I draw the line at harming people/animals. Vicks dogs may have been no more than property according to the law but that same law protects them from cruel and abusive treatments. It is immoral to do harm. Usually illegal too. It is immoral to take someone else's property for the purposes of protest/destruction/malice/gain etc. Usually illegal too. Unless a government entity is doing it. As for the rest, flame on.

Burning poetry books, or bibles, or Quarans just to piss people off makes you a jerk. It's not illegal to be a jerk. Nor should it be. If those were YOUR books whatever they were and you want to burn them and post it online go ahead. Jerk.  If you want to by a couple of cases of Bud Light and shoot them with an automatic rifle on tick tok, go right ahead. It was YOUR beer. If everyone stopped getting into a twist every time someone does this it will stop. They are TRYING to piss people off. Just ignore it and don't get pissed. Laugh at it instead like the harry potter lady.

I probably would have acquitted Roark as well.

BTW, if you want to get a good laugh at stupidity this Bud Light thing is the gift that keeps on giving. Also kudos to Dylan Mulvaney. Never heard of her before this. Most folks probably hadn't. There is no famous like controversy famous.

Budweiser's new pro-America ad sets social media ablaze: Can't put the 'genie back in the bottle, guys'

Edited April 17, 2023 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I didn't hear about Angelou's books being burned. But I will point out if they bought the books they burned her estate still got the royalty. I think the author of the Harry Potter books went through that a while back and responded to a book burning with a quip along the lines of "thanks for your money".

As for the morality of it, that is in the eye of the beholder. I draw the line at harming people/animals. Vicks dogs may have been no more than property according to the law but that same law protects them from cruel and abusive treatments. It is immoral to do harm. Usually illegal too. It is immoral to take someone else's property for the purposes of protest/destruction/malice/gain etc. Usually illegal too. Unless a government entity is doing it. As for the rest, flame on.

Burning poetry books, or bibles, or Quarans just to piss people off makes you a jerk. It's not illegal to be a jerk. Nor should it be. If those were YOUR books whatever they were and you want to burn them and post it online go ahead. Jerk.  If you want to by a couple of cases of Bud Light and shoot them with an automatic rifle on tick tok, go right ahead. It was YOUR beer. If everyone stopped getting into a twist every time someone does this it will stop. They are TRYING to piss people off. Just ignore it and don't get pissed. Laugh at it instead like the harry potter lady.

I probably would have acquitted Roark as well.

BTW, if you want to get a good laugh at stupidity this Bud Light thing is the gift that keeps on giving. Also kudos to Dylan Mulvaney. Never heard of her before this. Most folks probably hadn't. There is no famous like controversy famous.

Budweiser's new pro-America ad sets social media ablaze: Can't put the 'genie back in the bottle, guys'

Geez GD, you cant use Fox News links on this forum. You will be called a Neo-Nazi or fascist 

[Pidesco]

Fox News functions as the propaganda arm of a fascist organization even if it is not officially one.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Pidesco said:

Fox News functions as the propaganda arm of a fascist organization even if it is not officially one.

Pidesco aren't you generalizing now? In life you shouldn't label everyone with the same brush...thats EXACTLY what the radical left does 

[Gfted1]

BVC, if Ive learned anything here, its that nazis are everywhere. If theres two people standing naked in a completely empty room, you can bet your bippy that all three are nazis.

[Pidesco]

14 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Pidesco aren't you generalizing now? In life you shouldn't label everyone with the same brush...thats EXACTLY what the radical left does 

I am not, I am talking about a very specific news organization.

[Gromnir]

32 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I...

so now you are ok with book burnings? wasn't as if in the past the point o' those book burning stories were that the authors were being deprived o' royalties.

...

am not sure how many times we need go through this, but legal ≠ right. the book bans in florida is getting attention today, but similar bans has been happening in the US since the US were a thing and is not as if those "bans" were illegal. desantis is gonna lose any number o' court cases 'cause he went overbroad with his war on wokeism, but is hardly illegal for a school district to decide they no longer wanna teach 1984 or they wanna keep i know why the caged bird sings off shelves. legal. you has complained 'bout such in the past. today is different?

eye o' the beholder morality? am talking 'bout your eye chum 'cause you has espoused indignation in the past at perfect legal book bans and book burnings. on any other day not today your eye could recognize that just 'cause is legal to buy up every copy o' a book that makes you uncomfortable and set it aflame is legal but wrong. today is different 'cause you would rather double-down then reflect.

disposing o' a pet is perfect legal. take a healthy animal and shoot it 'cause it became inconvenient is ok. oh, and btw, in most states shoot somebody else's dog 'cause it growls at you is also ok ... and any sorta fear expressed don't even need be reasonable save in a few jurisdictions. your neighbor says that your dog maybe growled at him and is a good chance the law says she is in the right for killing. in ohio, for example, is ok to kill another person's dog 'cause it trespassed on your property. when we says "ok," we mean, it is legal to do so. is your expected outrage gonna be over property rights? 

less dramatic, but am thinking most people are still able to identify as wrong is the following

how many post pandemic pets has been taken to shelters 'cause they became inconvenient. did you laugh at that situation too, 'cause at least the pet shop owner or dog breeder still got paid?

you own the only hospital for hundreds o' miles but you have it razed instead o' selling it to new owners who is willing to pay fair market. 

lord knows you has funny ideas 'bout legal ≠ right where eminent domain is concerned.

etc.

double-down is a thing 'round here. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[BruceVC]

25 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

BVC, if Ive learned anything here, its that nazis are everywhere. If theres two people standing naked in a completely empty room, you can bet your bippy that all three are nazis.

Absolutely but this forum is minor compared to other places and forums where certain people on the left and right have completely abused the definition of words like Nazi or Socialist. 

Its got to the point where people throw these words around when someone simply disagrees with you or supports a different political party. It does make me laugh depending on what forum I notice it  

I remember the first time I noticed how for some people they have lost the ability to disagree or engage in a constructive way and they dont engage in good faith 

It was on CNN in  2016 when Trump won the election and there was still shock from the Democrats. The CNN news anchor interviewed 2 people, a young  black women  Democrat who was from Africa but obviously American now and  a white man, maybe 60+ or so, and a Trump supporter 

And the anchor asked " is Trump racist " and this is how the conversation went ( Im summarizing it )

Democrat : Yes he is 

Republican: No he is not

Democrat : You have no right to comment on racism, you dont understand lived experience 

Republican : Oh, so now I cant comment on racism because Im white 

Now both of them were wrong and didnt debate very well. Firstly anyone can have empathy and comment on any type of bigotry, for example you dont need to be gay to believe homophobia is wrong. So of course a white person can comment on racism, its just got to be honest. So she was wrong to say that 

But the Republican ended up playing the victim card and saying " oh so now I cant comment on racism" . He should have just ignored what she said and kept his composure and he should have stuck to his views. So he was wrong in how he responded 

But the point is the entire exchange between them became this cringe invective and if you were watching you didnt gain anything from it 

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

Fox News functions as the propaganda arm of a fascist organization even if it is not officially one.

Was I unclear about posting a story that should be mocked and laughed at? Does that sound like I was suggesting a Fox News story should be taken seriously? BTW, I'm sure you know this but ALL news is propaganda. All of it. Even when it's true and even when it informs. In fact most of it is true, even Fox & MSNBC. From a carefully tailored POV. All of it is presented in a way to persuade thinking from one direction or another.

[Lexx]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

BVC, if Ive learned anything here, its that nazis are everywhere. If theres two people standing naked in a completely empty room, you can bet your bippy that all three are nazis.

Don't worry, americans can't recognize a nazi when he's sieg hailing right in front of them.

[Guard Dog]

14 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

so now you are ok with book burnings? wasn't as if in the past the point o' those book burning stories were that the authors were being deprived o' royalties.

...

am not sure how many times we need go through this, but legal ≠ right. the book bans in florida is getting attention today, but similar bans has been happening in the US since the US were a thing and is not as if those "bans" were illegal. desantis is gonna lose any number o' court cases 'cause he went overbroad with his war on wokeism, but is hardly illegal for a school district to decide they no longer wanna teach 1984 or they wanna keep i know why the caged bird sings off shelves. legal. you has complained 'bout such in the past. today is different?

eye o' the beholder morality? am talking 'bout your eye chum 'cause you has espoused indignation in the past at perfect legal book bans and book burnings. on any other day not today your eye could recognize that just 'cause is legal to buy up every copy o' a book that makes you uncomfortable and set it aflame is legal but wrong. today is different 'cause you would rather double-down then reflect.

disposing o' a pet is perfect legal. take a healthy animal and shoot it 'cause it became inconvenient is ok. oh, and btw, in most states shoot somebody else's dog 'cause it growls at you is also ok ... and any sorta fear expressed don't even need be reasonable save in a few jurisdictions. your neighbor says that your dog maybe growled at him and is a good chance the law says she is in the right for killing. in ohio, for example, is ok to kill another person's dog 'cause it trespassed on your property. when we says "ok," we mean, it is legal to do so. is your expected outrage gonna be over property rights? 

less dramatic, but am thinking most people are still able to identify as wrong is the following

how many post pandemic pets has been taken to shelters 'cause they became inconvenient. did you laugh at that situation too, 'cause at least the pet shop owner or dog breeder still got paid?

you own the only hospital for hundreds o' miles but you have it razed instead o' selling it to new owners who is willing to pay fair market. 

lord knows you has funny ideas 'bout legal ≠ right where eminent domain is concerned.

etc.

double-down is a thing 'round here. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

OK there is a big distinction between book burning and book banning UNLESS both happen to be a state sponsored activity. If the government has you goose stepping around piles of burning books (something Florida is coming perilously close to) and has made it a crime to read them then it past time to start a revolution. Remember who Guy Montag worked for after all.

If redneck Pastor Joe from Micanopy Florida wants to burn Heather Has Two Mommies because Satan wrote it that is a different story. It makes him a jerk but not a criminal in any stretch of imagination. Nor should it. As long as he came by those books honestly. Redneck Pastor Joe is not keeping someone from reading that book just because he burned a few copies. What he's doing is neither immoral nor illegal. Just stupid.

When the state says "Thou shalt not have this book in thy library" they ARE trying to restrict people (kids mostly) from reading it. That is immoral hands down. Not illegal. But definitely immoral. IMO at least.

The irony is most of the books folks want banned would seldom get a look. Remember back in the 80's the movie The Last Temptation of Christ? It was an abysmally bad movie that probably would have flopped had folks not gotten into a twist about it. So many people were out there protesting because it painted Jesus as insane IIRC (been a while since I've seen it) that movie goers who would have otherwise passed went to see it. Sometimes the best thing to do about the stuff that pisses you off is to just ignore it. Try to make it go away and it has the opposite effect.

The pet discussion goes down a whole other rabbit hole. If shelters were a bit more circumspect about who they adopted to that would not happen as often. Plus people are teaching their children that pets are disposable commodities when they do that and they will teach their children that and on it goes. People suck. Most of them. Well, more like about half of them .

[BruceVC]

31 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Don't worry, americans can't recognize a nazi when he's sieg hailing right in front of them.

Thats not the problem, its that the description gets overused by certain liberals and the radical left whenever someone disagrees with there particular political and or ideological views. And I say certain because not all liberals do but a vociferous minority with media attention are guilty of this

And what ends up happening is exactly the reality now  in the US and other countries, like SA, where people dont take it seriously anymore because " everyone becomes a Nazi"

Let me give you 2 examples of this, Jordan Peterson was accused  of being a Nazi because of his views on pronoun usage. And if you ever watch his videos you will see he is not anything like someone who believes in Nazi ideology which is a type of  white supremacy IMO 

And then the Canadian truckers protest, people were calling them Nazi when in fact most truckers were not Nazi at all but they were involved in an illegal, ill-conceived and pointless protest. But that doesnt mean they Nazi 

Thats what I mean by abuse of the word Nazi 

 

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

OK there is a big distinction between book burning and book banning UNLESS both happen to be a state sponsored activity. If the government has you goose stepping around piles of burning books (something Florida is coming perilously close to) and has made it a crime to read them then it past time to start a revolution. Remember who Guy Montag worked for after all.

If redneck Pastor Joe from Micanopy Florida wants to burn Heather Has Two Mommies because Satan wrote it that is a different story. It makes him a jerk but not a criminal in any stretch of imagination. Nor should it. As long as he came by those books honestly. Redneck Pastor Joe is not keeping someone from reading that book just because he burned a few copies. What he's doing is neither immoral nor illegal. Just stupid.

When the state says "Thou shalt not have this book in thy library" they ARE trying to restrict people (kids mostly) from reading it. That is immoral hands down. Not illegal. But definitely immoral. IMO at least.

The irony is most of the books folks want banned would seldom get a look. Remember back in the 80's the movie The Last Temptation of Christ? It was an abysmally bad movie that probably would have flopped had folks not gotten into a twist about it. So many people were out there protesting because it painted Jesus as insane IIRC (been a while since I've seen it) that movie goers who would have otherwise passed went to see it. Sometimes the best thing to do about the stuff that pisses you off is to just ignore it. Try to make it go away and it has the opposite effect.

The pet discussion goes down a whole other rabbit hole. If shelters were a bit more circumspect about who they adopted to that would not happen as often. Plus people are teaching their children that pets are disposable commodities when they do that and they will teach their children that and on it goes. People suck. Most of them. Well, more like about half of them .

Hey now. Don't slag on Scorsese. That's a step too far.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Remember back in the 80's the movie The Last Temptation of Christ? It was an abysmally bad movie that probably would have flopped had folks not gotten into a twist about it.

That's an incredible film though.

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Was I unclear about posting a story that should be mocked and laughed at? Does that sound like I was suggesting a Fox News story should be taken seriously? BTW, I'm sure you know this but ALL news is propaganda. All of it. Even when it's true and even when it informs. In fact most of it is true, even Fox & MSNBC. From a carefully tailored POV. All of it is presented in a way to persuade thinking from one direction or another.

I was aiming that post at Bruce not you. I have not even clicked your link.

 

But anyway, as bad as MSNBC is it can't hold a candle to the egregiously problematic fox news.

[HoonDing]

Mein Kampf should never have been banned.

If everyone had access to that book, there'd be far fewer (extreme) right-wingers. It's so well written it makes R.A. Salvatore look like Goethe.

[Lexx]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Thats not the problem, its that the description gets overused by certain liberals and the radical left

Pretty funny to say that and then include "the radical left".

 

21 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

Mein Kampf should never have been banned.

Is it banned? It's not even banned in Germany. But the simple truth is, the idiots who buy the book are the ones who can't even read.

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Pretty funny to say that and then include "the radical left".

 

Is it banned? It's not even banned in Germany. But the simple truth is, the idiots who buy the book are the ones who can't even read.

Yes but we have discussed this, what should I refer to them as? The left ....but they not the left because they have extreme  left views 

[Pidesco]

Used to be that the extreme left were organised clandestine groups who advocated for violent insurgence, with assassinations and bombings.

 

These days the extreme left appears to be people who describe as fascists groups who used to be neo nazis but discovered the suit and tie and haircuts.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

 

 

[HoonDing]

Extreme left want to seize the means of production.

Extreme right want to eradicate all people they dislike.

I can't imagine which is worse.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

It makes him a jerk but not a criminal in any stretch of imagination. Nor should it.

...

there is a serious communication gap, but am not sure how to fix. how many different ways does Gromnir need identify legal ≠ right? is not 'bout criminal v. legal for gawdsakes. are you channeling bruce or something? 

have mentioned how many times Gromnir has defended white supremacist's right to speak, but that so don't mean am thinking hateful utterances is right and we sure as hell ain't laughing when the racists burn things.

legal? yeah/ far different than right, but for gd, as long as the folks in the white robes used their own bed linens to make their hoods and purchased their own lumber to craft and then burn their cross, then is no more than an eyes of the beholder situation.  he laughs at such symbolic burning?

you are the tax is theft guy. you is the person who expounded how you would kill an officer o' the law who legal attempted to confiscate your rusty chainsaw 'cause o' the principle o' the matter. 'member? and again, you have derided book burnings in the past and those book burnings in the US were not state sponsored 'cause even in florida there is still first amendment prohibitions which preclude that kinda thing. 

also,  blame on shelters for allowing any person to adopt animals is 'bout the most ridiculous response we has seen. again, as the guy who thinks tax is theft, what is your solution?  magic some kinda telepathy sooperpower to animal shelter employees? abandoned dogs and cats is a drain on county/state resources, but gd wants to blame shelters for failure to be proactive in diving bad pet owners. pets is so not a different rabbit hole. pets is personal property and is no more due diligence required o' shelters than is the case for other personal property such as hammers, reading glasses and ballpoint pens, 'cept where democracy makes a law 'bout such and then taxes GD to pay for increased scrutiny... which is theft, so no-win, eh? 

regardless, you distinguish your position on book burnings yesterday from today. you plant your flag on legal property ownership as being dispositive unless is animals and taxes 'cause you has feelings 'bout such stuff. you are willful inconsistent. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 17, 2023 by Gromnir