Immigrant Children Cry Out in Audio Recorded at Detention Center

[Boiler 45,486]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

No, which is unfortunate if you ask me.

 

But...

 

What members of the media or elites are cheering Fonda on?

What members of the media or elites are cheering Fonda on?

The comparison with Rosanee is stunning, surprising you can not see it.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

The comparison with Rosanee is stunning, surprising you can not see it.

I can see it and I agree with you. In the thread about it I said his employers should take action. I'd say his message was worse than Roseanne's.

 

The meme said people were cheering Fonda on, I'm merely asking for the details regarding that statement. Silence in this case is certainly upsetting, but it is a far cry from actively "cheering" him on.

[Boiler 45,486]

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

I can see it and I agree with you. In the thread about it I said his employers should take action. I'd say his message was worse than Roseanne's.

 

The meme said people were cheering Fonda on, I'm merely asking for the details regarding that statement. Silence in this case is certainly upsetting, but it is a far cry from actively "cheering" him on.

I never said that, I was commenting on the differences, the hypocrisy of the MSM.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

I never said that, I was commenting on the differences, the hypocrisy of the MSM.

I was commenting on the meme that was posted. You don't have to defend it. I agree with you, but the meme itself was misleading. "Fake news", if you will.

 

It's ironic that this thread already had a discussion of misleading imagery...

 

Edit: sorry I mistakenly thought you posted the meme.

Edited June 23, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 hours ago, IDWAF said:

It’s despicable, what the US is doing today.  Oh wait....

 

 

well look at at it this way. He and his sister both are now equally despised

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

I was commenting on the meme that was posted. You don't have to defend it. I agree with you, but the meme itself was misleading. "Fake news", if you will.

 

It's ironic that this thread already had a discussion of misleading imagery...

 

Edit: sorry I mistakenly thought you posted the meme.

Nope,  that was me.  But to answer your question... while I have seen no one outwardly supporting Fonda's stance, neither have I seen anyone really speaking out against him.  Silence is consent, or so goes the saying.  Sometimes, people will nod with glee on the inside when someone says what the others are thinking, but they lack the intestinal fortitude to actually say the words out loud.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

Nope,  that was me.  But to answer your question... while I have seen no one outwardly supporting Fonda's stance, neither have I seen anyone really speaking out against him.  Silence is consent, or so goes the saying.  Sometimes, people will nod with glee on the inside when someone says what the others are thinking, but they lack the intestinal fortitude to actually say the words out loud.

Silence can be construed as consent, but it certainly can't be construed as "cheering". That certainly needs outward actions.

 

The meme was misleading. Honestly the author could have made their point by sticking to facts (just saying people have been silent would have been enough). The fact that they cared more about their agenda than the actual truth is telling.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Nope,  that was me.  But to answer your question... while I have seen no one outwardly supporting Fonda's stance, neither have I seen anyone really speaking out against him.  Silence is consent, or so goes the saying.  Sometimes, people will nod with glee on the inside when someone says what the others are thinking, but they lack the intestinal fortitude to actually say the words out loud.

 

  Consent (condone?) is when people are actively supporting or defending someone's actions. You may want to re-read the Roseanne Barr thread for reference.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Steeleballz

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Consent (condone?) is when people are actively supporting or defending someone's actions. You may want to re-read the Roseanne Barr thread for reference.

Is that right, or just convenient for the moment?  What if I walked by someone acting in a racist manner towards someone, and said nothing.  That’s not active support, so it must not be consent?

Perhaps we define consent differently.  Normally, to give consent means to give permission.  That is active, not passive, I agree.  But refusing to speak out on a subject against the orator/writer can also be interpreted as agreement or consent.  This is not a new concept.

 

http://wiki.c2.com/?SilenceImpliesConsent 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Is that right, or just convenient for the moment?  What if I walked by someone acting in a racist manner towards someone, and said nothing.  That’s not active support, so it must not be consent?

Perhaps we define consent differently.  Normally, to give consent means to give permission.  That is active, not passive, I agree.  But refusing to speak out on a subject against the orator/writer can also be interpreted as agreement or consent.  This is not a new concept.

 

http://wiki.c2.com/?SilenceImpliesConsent 

If you walked by someone acting racist and said nothing, no one would say you cheered them on.

 

The meme was misleading, and by posting it you were agreeing/condoning it. Not that I'm surprised.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

If you walked by someone acting racist and said nothing, no one would say you cheered them on.

 

The meme was misleading, and by posting it you were agreeing/condoning it. Not that I'm surprised.

Your name is not Steelballz.  I was not replying to you.  If you wish to engage me with your posts, please let’s only quote those between us.  It helps keep the convo more in line, eh?

 

You can “assume” that my silence to your response to me above was consent (agreement) to what you were saying.  Now get back to writing your paper...  

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IDWAF said:

Your name is not Steelballz.  I was not replying to you.  If you wish to engage me with your posts, please let’s only quote those between us.  It helps keep the convo more in line, eh?

 

You can “assume” that my silence to your response to me above was consent (agreement) to what you were saying.  Now get back to writing your paper...  

I'm certainly not the first here to insert myself in conversations. It's also a public forum, so it's kind of par for the course.

 

I don't need to assume. It's quite transparent.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, bcking said:

I'm certainly not the first here to insert myself in conversations. It's also a public forum, so it's kind of par for the course.

 

I don't need to assume. It's quite transparent.

At least I didn’t tell you you couldn’t quote me.  Some (kinda rude) members have done just that.

 

So if you knew I was agreeing with you, why respond to my response to SB and try to make your point again?  Isn’t that redundant?  And sort of a waste of your words?

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IDWAF said:

At least I didn’t tell you you couldn’t quote me.  Some (kinda rude) members have done just that.

 

So if you knew I was agreeing with you, why respond to my response to SB and try to make your point again?  Isn’t that redundant?  And sort of a waste of your words?

Difference between couldn't and shouldn't. I can't keep you from doing anything.

 

Because sometimes it's nice to have you admit it... But I realize that's something you are loathe to do. Very much like Trump actually. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

Difference between couldn't and shouldn't. I can't keep you from doing anything.

 

Because sometimes it's nice to have you admit it... But I realize that's something you are loathe to do. Very much like Trump actually. 

Loathe to admit it?  No, not really.  I agree with a lot of people on here, and don’t say anything.  People tend to engage with others when there is a difference in opinion.  I agree with many things you say, and don’t comment on them, or only minimally so.   Just as I doubt you’d have much to say if I stated that the earth is round (well, actually, you might type a few paragraphs about it, but that’s your forte, writing).  

I doubt very seriously that you need/want/care about my approval/agreement most days.  You are often a voice of reason here, and while rather long-winded sometimes, you tend to present facts, which I like.  Your disdain of Trump, some of that we share too.  But I try not to say many negative things about him; he is the president, after all.  And hoping he fails is sort of like hoping the boat you are sailing on sinks soon, IMHO.  

So to be clear, you were correct that I have not seen people cheering Fonda on; then again, I wouldn’t, since I don’t watch TV (other than Netflix at home, and whatever CNN/FOX BS I happen to watch in public places while wasting time.  I didn’t make the meme, but I think it has merit.  IMHO, Fonda should lose his movie rights at a minimum, and be subjects to secret service scrutiny for comments against the president’s family.  He apologized, and now all is ok.  I think Roseanne apologized, too.  And look at the difference.  The hypocrisy.  Perhaps you see it.  Perhaps you don’t.  Perhaps you are smiling inside, perhaps you are not.  At the end of the day, none of it really matters to you and I, eh?  It’s just a sign of how very messed up and divided our country is.  And it’s getting worse by the day.