Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

(edited)

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

And you probably thought I was just joking... 

Possible next EU boss says nationalism is “the way of destruction”

Left-wing politician Frans Timmermans from the Netherlands was nominated last week as the next President of the European Commission.

If elected, he promises to crush all conservative governments in the EU and make Europe and Africa a joint continent.

Timmermans is today the first Vice-President of the European Commission, and has a good chance of taking over as President after Jean-Claude Juncker.

In earlier statements, Timmermans has said that Europe cannot continue to be a place of peace and freedom unless diversity through mass migration is implemented in the continent, even in its most distant parts.

... He argues that “it is fated” that Africa is incorporated into Europe and that the two become one large continent in terms of free movement.

The responsibility for the African population, which is expected to more than double to 2.2 billion people by 2050, rests as much on us in Europe as the Africans themselves, he stated.

In conclusion, he sharply attacked nationalists whom he means hate other countries and can only exist if they are allowed to appoint others as enemies.

According to Timmermans, “nationalism is the way of destruction”. ...

Oh, total rubbish.  Timmermans never said any of that.  I invite you to read his speech.  Here is the paragraph on Africa:

     " And the only way we can get the migration  issue under control and manageable, without losing track of our       values, is if we are part of the sustainable development of Africa, in  all senses of the word. "

Edited by Jan van Eck
Add quotation marks
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Oh, total rubbish.  Timmermans never said any of that.  I invite you to read his speech.  Here is the paragraph on Africa:

     " And the only way we can get the migration  issue under control and manageable, without losing track of our       values, is if we are part of the sustainable development of Africa, in  all senses of the word. "

Incorrect.

Full speech here:

https://m.facebook.com/notes/frans-timmermans/a-fight-for-the-soul-of-europe-speech-at-pes-congress-lisbon-8-december-2018/2050129038343278/

Here is just the part on Africa:

... Finally, I want to mention something that has not been mentioned that often today. I want to mention it in the presence of national leaders, at least three of you here today, who have carried the torch on this, and that is our relationship with Africa.
 
People, let’s be under no illusion. If we do not understand that the development of our sister continent is of essential importance for our collective future, then we will make a huge mistake. If we do not understand that the challenge we face with Africa is comparable to the challenge France and Germany faced in 1945 when they had to find reconciliation, and is comparable to the challenge Europe faced in 1989 when we had to heal the wounds of dictatorship. It is a matter of destiny.
 
The Africans are waking up to the fact that their partnership with China is not delivering what they had hoped for. They are also discovering that the United States is completely uninterested in their fate. So, whose fate is going to be dealt with by whom: Europe’s fate by Africans, Africa’s fate by Europeans. We are in this together. Our destinies are linked.
 
And the only way we can get the migration issue under control and manageable, without losing track of our values, is if we are part of the sustainable development of Africa, in all senses of the word.
 
If I lead the next Commission, I will make sure this is as high on the agenda of the Prime Minister of Sweden - who I will never have to convince - but of all the Nordic countries and Western European countries as well. Africa is a common responsibility of the whole of Europe – West, East, North and South.
Because the alternatives is very simple. If we do not take that responsibility on our shoulders the process of de-humanising refugees and migrants is going to continue. And the lack of interest in people drowning in the Mediterranean is going to increase. And then we will lose track of our values.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I carefully read the speech.  Where does it say anything about unrestricted migration and making the two continents one in terms of population movement?  He advocates nothing of the sort.  What Timmermans is implying is that the legacy of colonial powers of Europe so disrupting Africa leaves an obligation on the colonial powers, and now the entire European continent, to work towards the sustainable development of Africa.     

Her advocates internal African development.  The implication is that with African work opportunities there is no impetus to go to Europe.  I, for one, do agree with that proposition.  

Another part of sustainable development is water control and irrigation.  The Dutch are good at that.  Africa desperately needs help in stopping desertification.  That is "sustainable development."  I, for one, agree with that. 

There is nothing in there about unchecked mass migration of Africans into Europe.  There is not a hint of it anywhere. He does not advocate that.  The website you originally quoted from is a propaganda sheet of the far right. Let's be fair.

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

If only I could somehow shoehorn in the idea that guns cause climate change, this thread would prolly be complete.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not going away.  Full stop.

In Texas, which is dang near a separate territory from the rest of the U.S. culture (sort of like how California is vastly different from "flyover county" in the U.S.) lots of Texans carry guns.  It's a longstanding culture (reminder, my degree is in Sociology).  Just watch a few old Western movies about the old Wild West to get the idea that guns are a part of the culture in Texas.

Oho, Tom!  Ask and ye shall receive, my friend, but let's add immigration to really get the juices flowing, shall we:

Immigration, guns and climate change are inter-related

(Excerpt)

Our actions from guns to climate change have intensified the problems, driving so many families north.  Our president’s mean-spirited border policy is compounding the misery being heaped on these immigrants by this country. We need to have the courage to acknowledge our complicity in the creation of this crisis.  We need to develop and enforce immigration policies that are both fair and humane, and we need to make amends for our actions, which have inflicted so much misery on our neighbors. 

Pam McVety is a Tallahassee biologist and climate change educator.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Otis11 said:

 

There are actually many different cultures in and across the US. The exact number depends how you define them, but they can be starkly different. As different as French, from Germans from English!

If you don't believe me, go to San Francisco, Small town Texas, Small town Alabama, small town Iowa, Houston, New York, Florida beach cities, Florida pan handle, Vermont, and good ol' cutoff Louisiana! (If you can even understand the accents of all these different areas, color me impressed!)

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-nations-of-the-united-states-2015-7

And Tom here is definitely right that a whole lot of Texas conceal carry, but I would push back on the 'old wild west' narrative as I don't think that accurately conveys the attitude or ideas. Actually, the highest concentration of Gun owners in the US is Plano, Texas - a suburb of Dallas. Go visit and you'll see this is actually a highly affluent, business/engineering centric area that doesn't have any apparent signs of the 'wild west' and almost everyone is well mannered and very polite. Yet you would be shocked at how many of them exercise their second amendment rights (also has shockingly low violent crime rates). 

(For reference, I've lived across the political landscape in the US from California to Texas, and multiple cities in each. I get to move an awful lot.)

 

In case any of you were not aware there was such a thing, this is one example of 100's of ladies handbags designed with a pistol holster included (pistol can be purchased separately at Wal-Mart or other convenient location).

 

image.thumb.png.3a3bdce3b865e5dffac94d9f3d2e49de.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

While in the case of the Post the new owner sometimes leans on the editorial staff to advance his own revenge agenda against people he does not like, still in the main the newsroom is free of interference. 

There are no degrees to unbiased news reporting. When bias walks on stage, it's no longer news reporting but PR. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

There are no degrees to unbiased news reporting. When bias walks on stage, it's no longer news reporting but PR. 

All true.  However, in the isolated case of the Post, that bias, or PR rubbish, is limited to the editorial page.  The actual news articles, the Reporting, is free of that.  SO I give the Post a pass, as long as you stay away from the Editorials section.  Then again, most Editorials are pontifications from blowhards. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

All true.  However, in the isolated case of the Post, that bias, or PR rubbish, is limited to the editorial page.  The actual news articles, the Reporting, is free of that.  SO I give the Post a pass, as long as you stay away from the Editorials section.  Then again, most Editorials are pontifications from blowhards. 

Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

All true.  However, in the isolated case of the Post, that bias, or PR rubbish, is limited to the editorial page.  The actual news articles, the Reporting, is free of that.  SO I give the Post a pass, as long as you stay away from the Editorials section.  Then again, most Editorials are pontifications from blowhards. 

Clearly we do not see eye to eye about mainstream media.  Washington Post is less than worthless, in my opinion - it is actually harmful and deliberate disinformation.  Ditto for New York Times.  Both are basically print versions of CNN infotainment cum disinformation.  Again, just my opinion.  But I assure you that you will be unable to change my mind that WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. are actual and factual news.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Clearly we do not see eye to eye about mainstream media.  Washington Post is less than worthless, in my opinion - it is actually harmful and deliberate disinformation.  Ditto for New York Times.  Both are basically print versions of CNN infotainment cum disinformation.  Again, just my opinion.  But I assure you that you will be unable to change my mind that WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. are actual and factual news.

CNN is not news.  Not even close. Cheers.

As for the Washington Post, it has a long and cherished tradition of deep reporting, and was the newspaper that undid the Nixon Administration by developing the "Deep Throat"  FBI informant, where they would meet in darkened garages at night and whisper information, in classic leak fashion.  Great stuff. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Clearly we do not see eye to eye about mainstream media.  Washington Post is less than worthless, in my opinion - it is actually harmful and deliberate disinformation.  Ditto for New York Times.  Both are basically print versions of CNN infotainment cum disinformation.  Again, just my opinion.  But I assure you that you will be unable to change my mind that WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. are actual and factual news.

just out of interest what is your take on breitbart? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

CNN is not news.  Not even close. Cheers.

As for the Washington Post, it has a long and cherished tradition of deep reporting, and was the newspaper that undid the Nixon Administration by developing the "Deep Throat"  FBI informant, where they would meet in darkened garages at night and whisper information, in classic leak fashion.  Great stuff. 

That may be, but what proof do you have that they have any of that old school integrity left?  Bezos seems to have permeated every facet of it, at least from what I have seen. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

...No loss there, he was a classic loser. useless, worthless, a gun nut, the low-life flotsam of society, someone who should never have been born.   

I've met some country boys with fairly regressive ideas who were, nonetheless, good people.  The issue there is not that they're "low-life flotsam", but that they grew up in a certain environment and did the best they could with it.  I believe there's a distinction between someone who is ignorant through no fault of their own and "low-life flotsam". 

That said, can you be more specific on what you mean by "gun nut"?  What set of ideas do these people hold, and what behaviors, specifically, do they engage in that separate them from the rest of the population? 

 

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I would have to agree with Red.  Tom, your intent is to poke fun and jog the reader, but the problem is that it falls flat in this medium.  It comes across as belittling and denigrating.  In your first example, you are denigrating Christian Evangelicals, specifically Hispanic Evangelicals.  I suspect the intention was to nudge readers into recognizing that reliance on the State for social programs results is a loss of self-reliance and personal respect, but it comes across as slapping Hispanic immigrants who hold deep-felt beliefs in their personal relationship to Christ.  Thus it is belittling a set of religious beliefs, and in respectful society we don't do that.  Does not matter what we think; what matters is to be respectful of what others think.  

Your second meme, intended as a jab at Chuck Schumer, is belittling.  Mr. Schumer is a sitting United States Senator, and if you don't want to respect him, because you think his thoughts are no good, then that's fine, you can go disagree.  But we don't disrespect the Office, which is what your meme is doing.   Your meme is a cartoon straight out of 1800's street-rag tabloids, and we have grown up as a nation since those days.  You don't see it that way and consider Senator Schumer a fair-game target, and that posture is, in part, why the political discourse is so fraught with peril, and does not more forward.  First, there is zero evidence to support the notion that Senator Schumer is attempting to advance immigration of a national group in order to further the voting numbers of the Democratic Party.  Second, the implied target, Latin Americans, are not likely candidates for the Democrats.  I suggest that the majority of second-generation Hispanic (but non-Puerto Rican) immigrants vote either Republican or Libertarian.  They tend to be socially quite conservative and the Dems lose out with their Party platform of  Leftist social ideas, including on abortion and homosexuality. So the meme is not even on point.  It is pure denigration of the Senate.

Your third meme takes a swipe at the news media.  While I would agree that cable news is typically not news and has disintegrated into sound bites of political opinion, and thus is both useless and worthless, that is not the case with either the New York Times or the Washington Post.  While in the case of the Post the new owner sometimes leans on the editorial staff to advance his own revenge agenda against people he does not like, still in the main the newsroom is free of interference.  The Times certainly tries to do an exemplary job and, with one glaring failure, carefully vets its news.  You can argue that the news media is fair game,  it probably is, but still the blanket swiping only coarsens the political discourse.  I think your meme is a silly cartoon, it fails. 

And that's the problem with memes in the context in which you attempt to use them:  They cannot convey nuance, as they are too pointed.  So the become rather silly, childish displays of petulance.  Which was likely not what you intended, but that is the way it ends up. 

The evidence that Democrats were trying to import voters is that Trump offered the DACA amnesty they claimed to want in exchange for immigration reform, but they rejected it.  In fact, he offered them more amnesty than they publicly asked for, and they still rejected it.  The lesson is that they didn't care about DACA; they just wanted the flow of immigrants to continue.  It's possible Trump knew they would reject the offer, but made it anyway just to highlight their hypocrisy. 

Their motive may not be the Hispanic voters themselves.  Democrats know that poor people with no hope vote for more government.  Flooding a country with millions of poor immigrants depresses wages, impoverishing the native population as well as the immigrants.  Democrats may be betting on the wholesale depression of wages to earn votes.  Even if that's not their intent, it's the practical outcome.  Millions of people are living the reality of depressed wages.  We can disagree with their political analysis, but it's not reasonable to dismiss their reality. 

 

On the note of lived realities, I agree that Tom's memes are... lowbrow.  I also agree that the members of this forum aren't the best audience for them.  That said, I think you may have misunderstood Tom's intent.  As he pointed out, memes are information warfare, and they are effective.  We can learn something about the average person's reality and thought processes by studying the memes.  I.e. the memes Tom presents are important for understanding people.  Therefore, we must consider them. 

Given the context the average person lives in, Tom's memes are actually the bare minimum stimulation necessary to hold someone's attention.  Like the 1800's street-rag tabloids you mention, memes are necessarily simplistic.  They're intended for a wide audience - which implies "the average person" - and simplistic is all the average person can handle.  On top of that, we must consider the ever increasing stimulation from 24/7 news cycles, increasingly shocking television, social media, and the incessant barrage of notifications from smart phones.  Memes are provocative because they must be. 

And then there's the pain, emotional distress, and heartache the average person struggles with.  Money may not buy happiness, but crying in a Mercedes is not the same level of stress as being unable to afford your loved one's funeral.  Snark, profanity, and crudity are not always voluntary choices.  More often, they're a coping mechanism for pain.  The final wall holding back an individual's despair.  If you don't believe that, go to war and watch good young men slowly mutate into sarcastic assholes.  Crudity, extremism, and disrespect in memes may be a plea for help.  It's a population's way of saying, "Something is very wrong, and we need you to listen."  We may not agree with their political analysis, but we must attend to their reality. Attending to the reality requires understanding it, and understanding it requires listening to everything, however unpleasant. 

Let's look at the opposite side of this coin: the comfortable elites.  I recognize that you're well-educated and operate in circles of intelligent, successful people.  You know there's a better way to live, I respect the knowledge you share, and I hope some day we can all emulate you.  At the same time, I see you becoming irritated with crass behavior, and I suspect there's a disconnect between your experience and theirs. 

Often, circumstances do not allow people to think and behave in particular ways.  Your level of affluence allows you certain options - not just economically, but also in how you view the world.  Those who struggle - the kind of "deplorables" who voted for Trump out of desperation - lack those options.  They cannot see what you see, and it's not their fault.  You cannot see what they see, and that's not your fault.  I run into this lack of understanding constantly when I try to explain to upper-middle-class city dwellers what life is like in rural communities.  Or when I try to explain to former officers what it was like to be enlisted.  Or when I try to explain the atrocities of Islamic extremists to naive civilians.  The unfortunate fact of the matter is that people only understand what they've experienced.  The elites get irritated with the common man's lack of refinement, and the common man gets irritated with the elites' detachment from practical concerns.  Neither is wrong.  The solution is for each to listen to everything the other has to say - not just the convenient or pleasant bits. 

To summarize: crass culture is a result of the pain people experience; it will not disappear until the pain disappears.  We can ignore the crudity until it boils over into a civil war, or we can listen, understand, and address the underlying causes.  I vote for listening, however unpleasant the memes may be. 

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

That may be, but what proof do you have that they have any of that old school integrity left?  Bezos seems to have permeated every facet of it, at least from what I have seen. 

There are no Woodward & Bernstein’s at WaPo, hasn’t been for a very long time......

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

News has always served the agenda of the state and has never been unbiased. Any information service that relies on info fed to it by 'a source close to the administration', 'high government official' cannot be unbiased and independent.  The New York Times and Washington Post are probably the biggest offenders here since that's who the government goes to when it wants to dole out info. It's then picked up by regional news organizations. With the 'anonymous' sources you always have to wonder if those are real at all.

In related news, CNN's 'Journalist of the Year' for 2014 recently resigned from Germany's Der Spiegel magazine for fabricating stories printed in Der Spiegel. He also freelanced for 'several high-profile German publications and also outlets abroad'. Among the doozies he wrote was one story that of course portrays Americans as backward racists.

Der Spiegel is considered a serious news/political magazine in Germany. He also won German reporting awards.

Edited by shadowkin
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mthebold said:

On the note of lived realities, I agree that Tom's memes are... lowbrow.  I also agree that the members of this forum aren't the best audience for them.  That said, I think you may have misunderstood Tom's intent.  As he pointed out, memes are information warfare, and they are effective.  We can learn something about the average person's reality and thought processes by studying the memes.  I.e. the memes Tom presents are important for understanding people.  Therefore, we must consider them. 

To some they may be funny, and perhaps you are his ideal audience.

Whatever Tom thinks the intent, and then reality, there seems a chasm.  How Tom can regard his drivel as information warfare is beyond me unless the information is irrelevance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TXPower said:

There are no Woodward & Bernstein’s at WaPo, hasn’t been for a very long time......

Agree Woodward & Bernstein credibillity is unquestionable. 

BTW - Bob woodward wrote a great book about the Trump administration, right? Not the least bit troubling, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Agree Woodward & Bernstein credibillity is unquestionable. 

BTW - Bob woodward wrote a great book about the Trump administration, right? Not the least bit troubling, right?

Troubling, yes, but no more so than similar books that have honestly and accurately looked into the Clinton White House or any pending that will look into the Obama White House.  Each of the 3 has very questionable honesty, ethics, integrity and all have skeletons exposed and yet to be exposed.  Stay tuned...…………...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mthebold said:

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that people only understand what they've experienced.

Thank you Paul.  I love simple, and I feel that simple sentence applies to every single discussion on this forum.  Maybe every debate ever.   

 

1 hour ago, Red said:

How Tom can regard his drivel as information warfare is beyond me

...It might be.  ...but i'm kidding, you strike me as very smart.  But I would offer this opinion, the meme is intended to "start the conversation" not "solve the problem"  

but, what do I know?

and of course, "Cheers"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

I've met some country boys with fairly regressive ideas who were, nonetheless, good people.  The issue there is not that they're "low-life flotsam", but that they grew up in a certain environment and did the best they could with it.  I believe there's a distinction between someone who is ignorant through no fault of their own and "low-life flotsam". 

That said, can you be more specific on what you mean by "gun nut"?  What set of ideas do these people hold, and what behaviors, specifically, do they engage in that separate them from the rest of the population? 

 

The evidence that Democrats were trying to import voters is that Trump offered the DACA amnesty they claimed to want in exchange for immigration reform, but they rejected it.  In fact, he offered them more amnesty than they publicly asked for, and they still rejected it.  The lesson is that they didn't care about DACA; they just wanted the flow of immigrants to continue.  It's possible Trump knew they would reject the offer, but made it anyway just to highlight their hypocrisy. 

Their motive may not be the Hispanic voters themselves.  Democrats know that poor people with no hope vote for more government.  Flooding a country with millions of poor immigrants depresses wages, impoverishing the native population as well as the immigrants.  Democrats may be betting on the wholesale depression of wages to earn votes.  Even if that's not their intent, it's the practical outcome.  Millions of people are living the reality of depressed wages.  We can disagree with their political analysis, but it's not reasonable to dismiss their reality. 

 

On the note of lived realities, I agree that Tom's memes are... lowbrow.  I also agree that the members of this forum aren't the best audience for them.  That said, I think you may have misunderstood Tom's intent.  As he pointed out, memes are information warfare, and they are effective.  We can learn something about the average person's reality and thought processes by studying the memes.  I.e. the memes Tom presents are important for understanding people.  Therefore, we must consider them. 

Given the context the average person lives in, Tom's memes are actually the bare minimum stimulation necessary to hold someone's attention.  Like the 1800's street-rag tabloids you mention, memes are necessarily simplistic.  They're intended for a wide audience - which implies "the average person" - and simplistic is all the average person can handle.  On top of that, we must consider the ever increasing stimulation from 24/7 news cycles, increasingly shocking television, social media, and the incessant barrage of notifications from smart phones.  Memes are provocative because they must be. 

And then there's the pain, emotional distress, and heartache the average person struggles with.  Money may not buy happiness, but crying in a Mercedes is not the same level of stress as being unable to afford your loved one's funeral.  Snark, profanity, and crudity are not always voluntary choices.  More often, they're a coping mechanism for pain.  The final wall holding back an individual's despair.  If you don't believe that, go to war and watch good young men slowly mutate into sarcastic assholes.  Crudity, extremism, and disrespect in memes may be a plea for help.  It's a population's way of saying, "Something is very wrong, and we need you to listen."  We may not agree with their political analysis, but we must attend to their reality. Attending to the reality requires understanding it, and understanding it requires listening to everything, however unpleasant. 

Let's look at the opposite side of this coin: the comfortable elites.  I recognize that you're well-educated and operate in circles of intelligent, successful people.  You know there's a better way to live, I respect the knowledge you share, and I hope some day we can all emulate you.  At the same time, I see you becoming irritated with crass behavior, and I suspect there's a disconnect between your experience and theirs. 

Often, circumstances do not allow people to think and behave in particular ways.  Your level of affluence allows you certain options - not just economically, but also in how you view the world.  Those who struggle - the kind of "deplorables" who voted for Trump out of desperation - lack those options.  They cannot see what you see, and it's not their fault.  You cannot see what they see, and that's not your fault.  I run into this lack of understanding constantly when I try to explain to upper-middle-class city dwellers what life is like in rural communities.  Or when I try to explain to former officers what it was like to be enlisted.  Or when I try to explain the atrocities of Islamic extremists to naive civilians.  The unfortunate fact of the matter is that people only understand what they've experienced.  The elites get irritated with the common man's lack of refinement, and the common man gets irritated with the elites' detachment from practical concerns.  Neither is wrong.  The solution is for each to listen to everything the other has to say - not just the convenient or pleasant bits. 

To summarize: crass culture is a result of the pain people experience; it will not disappear until the pain disappears.  We can ignore the crudity until it boils over into a civil war, or we can listen, understand, and address the underlying causes.  I vote for listening, however unpleasant the memes may be. 

I disagree. 3 words : Lead by example. 

The problem with Toms memes is that they dum down the debate, which in my opinion is not helpful. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I would have to agree with Red.  Tom, your intent is to poke fun and jog the reader, but the problem is that it falls flat in this medium.  It comes across as belittling and denigrating.  In your first example, you are denigrating Christian Evangelicals, specifically Hispanic Evangelicals.  I suspect the intention was to nudge readers into recognizing that reliance on the State for social programs results is a loss of self-reliance and personal respect, but it comes across as slapping Hispanic immigrants who hold deep-felt beliefs in their personal relationship to Christ.  Thus it is belittling a set of religious beliefs, and in respectful society we don't do that.  Does not matter what we think; what matters is to be respectful of what others think. 

Your second meme, intended as a jab at Chuck Schumer, is belittling.  Mr. Schumer is a sitting United States Senator, and if you don't want to respect him, because you think his thoughts are no good, then that's fine, you can go disagree.  But we don't disrespect the Office, which is what your meme is doing.   Your meme is a cartoon straight out of 1800's street-rag tabloids, and we have grown up as a nation since those days.  You don't see it that way and consider Senator Schumer a fair-game target, and that posture is, in part, why the political discourse is so fraught with peril, and does not more forward.  First, there is zero evidence to support the notion that Senator Schumer is attempting to advance immigration of a national group in order to further the voting numbers of the Democratic Party.  Second, the implied target, Latin Americans, are not likely candidates for the Democrats.  I suggest that the majority of second-generation Hispanic (but non-Puerto Rican) immigrants vote either Republican or Libertarian.  They tend to be socially quite conservative and the Dems lose out with their Party platform of  Leftist social ideas, including on abortion and homosexuality. So the meme is not even on point.  It is pure denigration of the Senate.

Your third meme takes a swipe at the news media.  While I would agree that cable news is typically not news and has disintegrated into sound bites of political opinion, and thus is both useless and worthless, that is not the case with either the New York Times or the Washington Post.  While in the case of the Post the new owner sometimes leans on the editorial staff to advance his own revenge agenda against people he does not like, still in the main the newsroom is free of interference.  The Times certainly tries to do an exemplary job and, with one glaring failure, carefully vets its news.  You can argue that the news media is fair game,  it probably is, but still the blanket swiping only coarsens the political discourse.  I think your meme is a silly cartoon, it fails. 

And that's the problem with memes in the context in which you attempt to use them:  They cannot convey nuance, as they are too pointed.  So the become rather silly, childish displays of petulance.  Which was likely not what you intended, but that is the way it ends up. 

I want to take an English class so I can convey my thougths like this..

Agree 100 % by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

just out of interest what is your take on breitbart? 

Right wing bias.  Balances out MSM left wing bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Right wing bias.  Balances out MSM left wing bias.

Tom practices new math:

-1 + -1 = 0

mathpics-mathjoke-mathmeme-pic-joke-math

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Right wing bias.  Balances out MSM left wing bias.

Why don't we just call it "right wing lunatic nutcase outfit" and close that book.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Why don't we just call it "right wing lunatic nutcase outfit" and close that book.

Because that would remove the balance to the unending, darn near all-encompassing, left wing bias of Mainstream Media.

Here, have some Rex on the closing of the Conservative The Weekly Standard:

Kristol's Fall is Far From Over...and He Knows It, Too

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites