1 Attachment(s)
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:
...but putting a woman or anyone down for worrying about their looks is just too much for me.....
To be fair... and to speak more about "looks" more than "worrying about their looks"... I/we make fun of Trump's looks all the time... orangeness, hair, weight, small hands, pursed lips, long tie, etc.... so by the same token, I wouldn't disqualify comments/cartoons that reference Nancy's looks as any more inappropriate.
I actually thought the botox cartoon was pretty funny, regardless if she has used botox or not... just that it juxtaposed the two notions of "blinking".
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Ray, I know I'm not the only one who would appreciate it if you would provide links to the sources of your statements, here and elsewhere. Thanks.
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Interesting you ask me for sources and not the extreme left assertions that fill this dialogue.
Are you sincerely interested in exploring an alternative viewpoint, or attempting to find rebuttal talking points?
This is a real question, not snark ;-)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
Ray, I know I'm not the only one who would appreciate it if you would provide links to the sources of your statements, here and elsewhere. Thanks.
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Also, my request is that you speak for yourself only and let "others" speak for themselves.
Asserting that there are 'others' or 'many' when you make a request is disingenuous and could be seen as your own lack of confidence in making a direct request for yourself and instead attempting to hide in the "crowd".
Unfortunately, the written word leaves room for the reader to imply the emotion behind the written statement. I am asking this of you in a calm, peaceful, open emotional tone, not in anger, arrogance or disdain. Really
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ray50sfo:
Also, my request is that you speak for yourself only and let "others" speak for themselves.
Asserting that there are 'others' or 'many' when you make a request is disingenuous and could be seen as your own lack of confidence in making a direct request for yourself and instead attempting to hide in the "crowd".
Unfortunately, the written word leaves room for the reader to imply the emotion behind the written statement. I am asking this of you in a calm, peaceful, open emotional tone, not in anger, arrogance or disdain. Really
well, maybe a little arrogance and disdain, though I'm sure you don't mean to feel that way. Your indirect psychoanalysis, that she's got a lack of confidence, shows that. Oh, I'm sorry - "could be seen as" by some imaginary others. You know, "people say...". Where else have I seen that pattern recently?
I think she's on safe ground when she says 'others'. I'll cop to being one. You're also still deflecting the request from at least three of us (maybe where she gets the idea that there are 'others'). You put out Fox memes, like the unsubstantiated hints that there are payoffs being hidden, with zero interest in exploring their credibility. Notice that all you've gotten from the lefties here are requests for more detail. You haven't bothered to go there, except with some pre-emptive refutation in case any of us believed that Sweden was a socialist paradise - a position that no-one holds. Even if all we want are talking points to rebut, so?? if they're valid, maybe we can't rebut them so easily.
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
I'm interested in knowing the sources of your information, Ray. Believe it or not, I do have acquaintances of your political persuasion and they are hard-pressed to provide legitimate (oh, I know you're going to pounce on that word!) sources for their statements. Rebuttal has nothing to do with it but credibility does. I have even found common ground with them a few times.
Frankly, Breitbart News and The National Enquirer and others of that ilk don't qualify as legitimate sources of information, IMO. Too much of their stuff is either made up or incomplete.
I doubt that there's is anything you could tell me that I haven't already heard and discussed with them.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ray50sfo:
Interesting you ask me for sources and not the extreme left assertions that fill this dialogue....
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
I used the word "others" because, as you well know but have chosen to ignore, others here have asked you for elaborations and references and you have steadfastly refused to supply them. You have also provided extensive quotes without attributing their sources.
What you seem to be doing here is making this personal (my "lack of confidence," "hide in the crowd," etc. ), a common tactic when one has nothing more to offer that is relevant to the discussion.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I wrote this myself with no help from anyone.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ray50sfo:
Also, my request is that you speak for yourself only and let "others" speak for themselves....
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
The main question I asked was why do you not challenge the sources for the far left versions of reality and then challenge mine. I am "whacking the hive" in the hopes that people will question their assumptions and consider alternative viewpoints.
Also, you make assumptions about my political persuasion. I am not a democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. I am an independent thinker who looks at issues from many angles and draws my own conclusions. You seem to be saying, "some of my best friends are not far left liberals..." :-)
To summarily dismiss any source of information that does not align with your preconceived beliefs is to participate in your own brainwashing by a powerful establishment media machine that does not have your best interest in mind. They have the preservation of their own power in mind.
How do you think Diane Feinstein's husband's company got their contract for the Smart Train? How did they get the Billion dollar contract for the california train to nowhere? Didn't read bout it in the Chronicle, so it's not true?
How about Nancy Pelosi and her son's involvement in the fraudulent environmental study that allowed housing to be built on the toxic waste rich Hunter's Point shipyard in San Francisco? The Bohemian didn't cover that? curious...must be right wing propaganda. That information was published by an African American neighborhood newspaper in the City and immediately buried by the local and national, democrat owned media.
Where do you get your news that lets you be so certain about your beliefs? It's called FAKE NEWS because it omits 90% of the story that doesn't fit the narrative being pushed. The main criterion these days for a "credible" story is does it make Trump look bad. Anything that doesn't parrot that theme simply gets ignored and remains unpublished.
Interesting that you do not list your sources of information while asking for mine. Is something "credible" because you hear it on msnbc, or read it in the New Yorker, or the NYT?
Your closing comment doesn't convince me that any effort to site sources would make much difference...after all, you've heard it all before, right?
While I'm being intellectually aggressive, I in no way disrespect you as a person or mean to demean your humanity. In fact, I respect each individual's right to believe as they will. Probably, if we met at a party (like maybe the wacco picnic), and didn't discuss these issues we would most likely enjoy each other's company.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
I'm interested in knowing the sources of your information, Ray. ...
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
There you go again, Ray: distract, dodge, and divert. Is that what "intellectual aggression" is? Not unlike Trump with his tax returns, etc.
I'm not challenging your sources because you haven't provided any.
I make no assumptions about your political persuasion. In fact as you describe yourself, it jibes perfectly with the people I know, which is why we agree on some points. You are making assumptions about my political persuasion, aren't you?
I don't need to ask for sources for other opinions provided on this site because they are either provided or I've seen them elsewhere.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ray50sfo:
The main question I asked was why do you not challenge the sources for the far left versions of reality and then challenge mine. ...
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
So why do Swedish men move to America? (I actually know three here in sonoma county) Because they fell in love with American women...
Yes the truth is often funnier than jokes.
Imagine if pelosi had blinked, hard to do because it wasn't much of a contest. We would have almost the same federal budget as we will have, maybe a few billion more for the boarder, weeks, probably months sooner! But with so much less drama, what fun would that be?
Debating us policy is more about death than life, we are the number 1 killing machine since like Hiroshima.
I like to think that I don't care about money and aspire to be poor, ever since I dropped out of berkeley and lived as a hermit learning to be happy sleeping on rocks and eating weeds. Then i fell in love, kids came, very expensive, needed money, still helping raise 7th and 8th with third woman 40 yrs later and I'm rich by any reasonable standard. Sure I work hard but really I'm incredibly lucky, wood knock.
I find one of the most interesting national comparisons to be between Sweden and Norway. According to one of my Swedish friends, Sweden gave Norway it's independance, since I don't know the history, the way I understand this is through an old Swedish movie I saw a long time ago about a Norwegian farmer. The character was sweet, clueless, doltish. The energy with which he said it I ascribe to the discovery of north sea oil, which funds a wonderful county, top of every list, with services close to star trek level.
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Ray as a longtime beekeeper I can assure you that whacking the hive is only a good idea if you want to get stung. It will still happen even if you're nice! But then it is supposed to be good for us. I've had more than my share.
I love living in the age of the internet. So much info at our fingertips. If I really wanted to challenge some tidbit I would look it up for real. Asking someone for their source in this day and age is just lazy potshoting, old school thinking, a certain lack of intellectual curiosity. Fortunately it happens less and less.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ray50sfo:
... I am "whacking the hive" in the hopes that people will question their assumptions and consider alternative viewpoints....
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Ray as a longtime beekeeper I can assure you that whacking the hive is only a good idea if you want to get stung. ...... If I really wanted to challenge some tidbit I would look it up for real. Asking someone for their source in this day and age is just lazy potshoting, old school thinking, a certain lack of intellectual curiosity. Fortunately it happens less and less.
that's not the only possible choice of analogy. How 'bout "if I wanted to start a discussion I'd make some unsubstantiated, kind of extreme, statements"? That fits better here.
You're right that swapping links to sources doesn't make for a particularly edifying internet thread. But you're mischaracterising where this has gone. Sure, there've been a few requests for sources - but lot more requests for him to expand, explain or defend some of his statements or choices of things to post. The whole long and ugly chain is right here, you can easily scan it yourself to see the questions he's been posed. It's kind of hard to come up with a fresh way to ask, clearly that's not the direction he's interested in taking this thread. It's pretty played out now, don't you think? with maybe an occasional fresh take here or there.
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ray50sfo:
... I am not a democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. I am an independent thinker who looks at issues from many angles and draws my own conclusions. ...
Don't kid yourself, Ray.
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Thanks for the friendly advice.
We all kid ourselves, Barry.
The real question is how much of the propaganda and brainwashing of the last 150 years have we each seen through and given up? And how seriously do we take our own certainty?
I'm ok with self-evaluation and identification, and often chuckle when others attempt imposing their labels - based on their own perceptions and prejudices - on me.
My favorite quote from the Firesign Theater is: "Everything you know is wrong!"
I periodically apply that thought to myself and others and it always leaves me laughing.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Don't kid yourself, Ray.
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Barry, women are always being judged for their looks, particularly if they do something that makes them stand out.
Trump is ridiculed because he, frankly, looks ridiculous, but it's rare for a man of prominence to be mocked for his appearance.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
To be fair... and to speak more about "looks" more than "worrying about their looks"... I/we make fun of Trump's looks all the time...
orangeness, hair, weight,
small hands, pursed lips, long tie, etc.... so by the same token, I wouldn't disqualify comments/cartoons that reference Nancy's looks as any more inappropriate.
I actually thought the botox cartoon was pretty funny, regardless if she has used botox or not... just that it juxtaposed the two notions of "blinking".
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
Barry, women are always being judged for their looks, particularly if they do something that makes them stand out.
Trump is ridiculed because he, frankly, looks ridiculous, but it's rare for a man of prominence to be mocked for his appearance.
I've got to weigh in in the middle. Men are frequently mocked for their looks, but not judged like women are. It's the old power thing - jokes about the group in power aren't a problem, jokes about the things that distinguish groups that are disadvantaged in some way are more fraught. Doesn't mean they can't be funny, but it's a much higher bar.
And to be fair, some people seem to strive for a higher plane where making fun of people is never funny. Seems a bit over-idealistic to me but I don't want to disrespect it.
Re: Best of Political Humor - January 2019 - Discussion
Rossmen, are you really declaring that you see no difference in which party's policies are better for the poor?! I'm not exactly a cheer leader for the dems, but the pubs have become way way out there in total distain for the poor!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
It really isn't funny to debate whether dem or pub policy is better for the poor, plenty of evidence on both sides. But to poke fun at American politics from all sides? What's not to laugh at?
