Holy crap - this has to stop!

[Pogo]

The Klan were not so much "conservatives" as "übeconservatives"

The KKK was founded by the Dumbocrats, you dimwit. There wasn't a conservative in sight.

Well they're in your party now. What did you do to attract the racists?

No...they are still very much in your party. The Dumbocrats have been the party of racists for over 150 years now and their hate of African-Americans is still going strong. Just look at all of these white Dumbocrats claiming that black people are too stupid to use the internet or even find their local DMV.

There is no "party of racists" you colossal black hole of brain anti-matter. Racism is not a political philosophy ---- it is a social construct. That's why it has existed for centuries. It was made up to try to justify the practice of transAtlantic slavery ---- and it started FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

--- which unfortunaltey for you Division Pimps is way WAY before there were any political parties here --- or a country here --- or even colonies here. .

Linear time, Buttsoiler --- you don't get to "opt out".

 

[OldLady]

Get a load of this.................A play in the park depicting Trump getting assassinated..................Some have pulled sponsorship others now so much..............Like the NY Times and American Express....................

A freaking play that shows our current POTUS being killed in it.........................and the left thinks we are the ones with the problem.

The more I see of this.............the more I'm ready to tell them to

AmEx, Trump death play don't budge after Delta, BofA bolt


Shortly after Delta Airlines and Bank of America (BofA) pulled their sponsorship of the New York City Public Theater’s Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar that depicted President Donald Trump as the slain emperor, American Express (AmEx) refused to pull its funding and the theater company will not budge after the public’s backlash.

Much of the play’s tragedy stems from the characters’ neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favor of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines...
Cassius can be seen as a man who has gone to the extreme in cultivating his public persona. Caesar, describing his distrust of Cassius, tells Antony that the problem with Cassius is his lack of a private life—his seeming refusal to acknowledge his own sensibilities or to nurture his own spirit. Such a man, Caesar fears, will let nothing interfere with his ambition. Indeed, Cassius lacks all sense of personal honor and shows himself to be a ruthless schemer.
SparkNotes: Julius Caesar: Themes, Motifs & Symbols

Julius Caesar is an exploration of political machinations and what happens when they go too far. It's not as much about killing Caesar as taking a hard look at why the conspirators did it, the real motivations for it.
Take a look at some of the Sparks Notes above. Notice anything timely in there that sounds like what we are discussing here, now? At least in my opinion, the conspirators do NOT come out of this smelling like a rose.
Maybe it is a good year to be putting on Julius Caesar. Watch the play with a Roman toga'd Caesar if it makes you feel better, and then get back to us on how it's a leftie plot of violence against our POTUS.

Setting Shakespeare's plays in the modern world is a common directorial decision. He is still relevant; there is nothing new under the sun; we still behave pretty much the same as we always have.

And I'm sure you would have felt the same way if the right created the same act only using Obama instead.

Totally beside the point. I respected Obama for the most part, but I'm not a Dem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Get a load of this.................A play in the park depicting Trump getting assassinated..................Some have pulled sponsorship others now so much..............Like the NY Times and American Express....................

A freaking play that shows our current POTUS being killed in it.........................and the left thinks we are the ones with the problem.

The more I see of this.............the more I'm ready to tell them to

AmEx, Trump death play don't budge after Delta, BofA bolt


Shortly after Delta Airlines and Bank of America (BofA) pulled their sponsorship of the New York City Public Theater’s Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar that depicted President Donald Trump as the slain emperor, American Express (AmEx) refused to pull its funding and the theater company will not budge after the public’s backlash.

Much of the play’s tragedy stems from the characters’ neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favor of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines...
Cassius can be seen as a man who has gone to the extreme in cultivating his public persona. Caesar, describing his distrust of Cassius, tells Antony that the problem with Cassius is his lack of a private life—his seeming refusal to acknowledge his own sensibilities or to nurture his own spirit. Such a man, Caesar fears, will let nothing interfere with his ambition. Indeed, Cassius lacks all sense of personal honor and shows himself to be a ruthless schemer.
SparkNotes: Julius Caesar: Themes, Motifs & Symbols

Julius Caesar is an exploration of political machinations and what happens when they go too far. It's not as much about killing Caesar as taking a hard look at why the conspirators did it, the real motivations for it.
Take a look at some of the Sparks Notes above. Notice anything timely in there that sounds like what we are discussing here, now? At least in my opinion, the conspirators do NOT come out of this smelling like a rose.
Maybe it is a good year to be putting on Julius Caesar. Watch the play with a Roman toga'd Caesar if it makes you feel better, and then get back to us on how it's a leftie plot of violence against our POTUS.

Setting Shakespeare's plays in the modern world is a common directorial decision. He is still relevant; there is nothing new under the sun; we still behave pretty much the same as we always have.

And I'm sure you would have felt the same way if the right created the same act only using Obama instead.

Totally beside the point. I respected Obama for the most part, but I'm not a Dem.

No, the point you are trying to make is that this "art" is anything other than an attack on our President, and I disagree. If it were DumBama, the country would have been outraged. It would be the main story on MSM for a week. Violent protestors and activists would probably have physically attacked the actors on day two. It would have not been tolerated by the left.

 

[Pogo]

Dude...we are talking about TODAY and you posted one link from 1947 (Hollywood) and one link from the Kent State shooting in the 1960's (which I'm not sure you can blame on conservatives as it was law enforcement on a liberal campus that engaged in the shooting).

Show us something from the last 12 months. Show us the right shutting down a Hillary Clinton event, assaulting her supporters, or rioting on campuses.

Finland!

Population 5.5 million. You're going to have to look up the name of the prime minister, aren't you?

So what he said about Obamacare is relevant, how?

I love the way the desperate partisanshits scramble to insert all these qualifications like "what the population of Finland is" and "in the last 12 months only" and "yabbut that was almost 80 years ago". They're losing, and they know it.

Meanwhile speaking of the last 12 months minutes, this thread just went up:

This absolutely made my night. The Shakespeare play in Central Park, which is directed by Jew, Tony Kushner got a much needed and unexpected surprise. During the play, right-wingers disrupted the play and rushed the stage. This is beautiful. It's about time the right-wing throws out this "we're above that" shit and starts to fight the left using their own tactics. Standing whistling ovation to those who disrupted this hate play. Let this be just the beginning!!!

BOOM!! Protesters INTERRUPT Trump Assassination Play – RUSH STAGE — Screaming “Goebbels Would Be Proud!” (VIDEO)

I didn't have time to read it, just passing it on.

But as far as Composition/Generalization fallacies and who's dividing who, I find this phrase particularly revealing:

"directed by Jew, Tony Kushner"

Yow! Negroes! Save me!!

And btw Buttsoiler, about your fear of examining what went down "almost 80 years ago" --- that's exactly what produced your perversion of what the word "Liberal" means, and you still haven't figured it out, so damn straight it's relevant. That was the sowing of seeds of division that are still sprouting today. And UNTIL you figure it out, it will remain relevant.

​

1) Interesting you quoted yourself and labelled it "buttsoiler". A confession?

2) Even FDR didn't like commies. Same for Truman and JFK.

1) You've been here longer than I --- you should remember his previous name he's running away from -- "Rottweiler". Hence --- "Buttsoiler".

2) Truman was a simplistic idiot and one of the most destructive POTUSes of the 20th century, exactly because he couldn't be bothered to scrutinize bullshit advice he was getting, particulaly from Jimmy Byrnes. He enabled the Red Scare to happen through his uncurious negligence. FDR would have seen right through that manipulating shit, and he would have had the stones to denounce it. Truman just rolled over.

"Commies" has nothing to do with the point. That's just the label of the era in a long list of labels. The point is Demonization, Dichotomy, the black/white "good/evil" bullshit mindset. Truman is as guilty as anybody of enabling it, allowing it to fester and even encouraging it. He was an intellectual wimp.

Witch hunts change their shirts regularly. In that era, "Commies". In other eras, "Catholics", or "Irish" or "Jews" or "Muslims" or "the Chinese hordes/the Yellow Peril" (member that one?) or in Buttsoiler's history-depivation tank, "Liberals". Some are religions, some are nationalities, some are political factions --- what they all have in common is they get their definitions painted in a new coat of Bullshit so they can be sold as "demons".

Demons which, by the way, you'll have to give up you civil liberties yea that we may smite them. And that's exactly what was going on with the Red Scare/Red Channels/Joe McCarthy bullshit. See it for what it is --- opportunistic demagoguery playing on fear of "eeebil deeemons".

1) You quoted yourself. You used to go by "Rottweiler"?

2) Nice rant, but I disagree.

You seem to be quoting my post but I have no idea who you're addresing here. I have never needed to change my user name here; I started as Pogo and I've never needed to run away from my history.

If it is me you're addessing, be specific about what you "disagee" with. If it's somebody else please clarify so we know where we are.

 

[Divine Wind]

I love the way the desperate partisanshits scramble to insert all these qualifications like "what the population of Finland is" and "in the last 12 months only" and "yabbut that was almost 80 years ago". They're losing, and they know it.

Meanwhile speaking of the last 12 months minutes, this thread just went up:

I didn't have time to read it, just passing it on.

But as far as Composition/Generalization fallacies and who's dividing who, I find this phrase particularly revealing:

"directed by Jew, Tony Kushner"

Yow! Negroes! Save me!!

And btw Buttsoiler, about your fear of examining what went down "almost 80 years ago" --- that's exactly what produced your perversion of what the word "Liberal" means, and you still haven't figured it out, so damn straight it's relevant. That was the sowing of seeds of division that are still sprouting today. And UNTIL you figure it out, it will remain relevant.

​

1) Interesting you quoted yourself and labelled it "buttsoiler". A confession?

2) Even FDR didn't like commies. Same for Truman and JFK.

1) You've been here longer than I --- you should remember his previous name he's running away from -- "Rottweiler". Hence --- "Buttsoiler".

2) Truman was a simplistic idiot and one of the most destructive POTUSes of the 20th century, exactly because he couldn't be bothered to scrutinize bullshit advice he was getting, particulaly from Jimmy Byrnes. He enabled the Red Scare to happen through his uncurious negligence. FDR would have seen right through that manipulating shit, and he would have had the stones to denounce it. Truman just rolled over.

"Commies" has nothing to do with the point. That's just the label of the era in a long list of labels. The point is Demonization, Dichotomy, the black/white "good/evil" bullshit mindset. Truman is as guilty as anybody of enabling it, allowing it to fester and even encouraging it. He was an intellectual wimp.

Witch hunts change their shirts regularly. In that era, "Commies". In other eras, "Catholics", or "Irish" or "Jews" or "Muslims" or "the Chinese hordes/the Yellow Peril" (member that one?) or in Buttsoiler's history-depivation tank, "Liberals". Some are religions, some are nationalities, some are political factions --- what they all have in common is they get their definitions painted in a new coat of Bullshit so they can be sold as "demons".

Demons which, by the way, you'll have to give up you civil liberties yea that we may smite them. And that's exactly what was going on with the Red Scare/Red Channels/Joe McCarthy bullshit. See it for what it is --- opportunistic demagoguery playing on fear of "eeebil deeemons".

1) You quoted yourself. You used to go by "Rottweiler"?

2) Nice rant, but I disagree.

You seem to be quoting my post but I have no idea who you're addresing here. I have never needed to change my user name here; I started as Pogo and I've never needed to run away from my history.

If it is me you're addessing, be specific about what you "disagee" with. If it's somebody else please clarify so we know where we are.

Scroll up and reread my post to you; you quoted yourself and called yourself "buttsoiler".

 

[Pogo]

Get a load of this.................A play in the park depicting Trump getting assassinated..................Some have pulled sponsorship others now so much..............Like the NY Times and American Express....................

A freaking play that shows our current POTUS being killed in it.........................and the left thinks we are the ones with the problem.

The more I see of this.............the more I'm ready to tell them to

AmEx, Trump death play don't budge after Delta, BofA bolt


Shortly after Delta Airlines and Bank of America (BofA) pulled their sponsorship of the New York City Public Theater’s Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar that depicted President Donald Trump as the slain emperor, American Express (AmEx) refused to pull its funding and the theater company will not budge after the public’s backlash.

Much of the play’s tragedy stems from the characters’ neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favor of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines...
Cassius can be seen as a man who has gone to the extreme in cultivating his public persona. Caesar, describing his distrust of Cassius, tells Antony that the problem with Cassius is his lack of a private life—his seeming refusal to acknowledge his own sensibilities or to nurture his own spirit. Such a man, Caesar fears, will let nothing interfere with his ambition. Indeed, Cassius lacks all sense of personal honor and shows himself to be a ruthless schemer.
SparkNotes: Julius Caesar: Themes, Motifs & Symbols

Julius Caesar is an exploration of political machinations and what happens when they go too far. It's not as much about killing Caesar as taking a hard look at why the conspirators did it, the real motivations for it.
Take a look at some of the Sparks Notes above. Notice anything timely in there that sounds like what we are discussing here, now? At least in my opinion, the conspirators do NOT come out of this smelling like a rose.
Maybe it is a good year to be putting on Julius Caesar. Watch the play with a Roman toga'd Caesar if it makes you feel better, and then get back to us on how it's a leftie plot of violence against our POTUS.

Setting Shakespeare's plays in the modern world is a common directorial decision. He is still relevant; there is nothing new under the sun; we still behave pretty much the same as we always have.

And I'm sure you would have felt the same way if the right created the same act only using Obama instead.

Totally beside the point. I respected Obama for the most part, but I'm not a Dem.

No, the point you are trying to make is that this "art" is anything other than an attack on our President, and I disagree. If it were DumBama, the country would have been outraged. It would be the main story on MSM for a week. Violent protestors and activists would probably have physically attacked the actors on day two. It would have not been tolerated by the left.

I have not looked into the play at all but ALL Art is supposed to challenge the current complacency. If it doesn't do that --- it's not Art. The other truism is that neither you nor anybody else gets to sit and declare "the only thing it can mean is X". That's abject bullshit. Art is made to be subjective for the viewer. By definition it cannot be "quantified" into ones and zeroes.

 

[Pogo]

And btw Buttsoiler, about your fear of examining what went down "almost 80 years ago" --- that's exactly what produced your perversion of what the word "Liberal" means, and you still haven't figured it out, so damn straight it's relevant. That was the sowing of seeds of division that are still sprouting today. And UNTIL you figure it out, it will remain relevant.

​

1) Interesting you quoted yourself and labelled it "buttsoiler". A confession?

2) Even FDR didn't like commies. Same for Truman and JFK.

1) You've been here longer than I --- you should remember his previous name he's running away from -- "Rottweiler". Hence --- "Buttsoiler".

2) Truman was a simplistic idiot and one of the most destructive POTUSes of the 20th century, exactly because he couldn't be bothered to scrutinize bullshit advice he was getting, particulaly from Jimmy Byrnes. He enabled the Red Scare to happen through his uncurious negligence. FDR would have seen right through that manipulating shit, and he would have had the stones to denounce it. Truman just rolled over.

"Commies" has nothing to do with the point. That's just the label of the era in a long list of labels. The point is Demonization, Dichotomy, the black/white "good/evil" bullshit mindset. Truman is as guilty as anybody of enabling it, allowing it to fester and even encouraging it. He was an intellectual wimp.

Witch hunts change their shirts regularly. In that era, "Commies". In other eras, "Catholics", or "Irish" or "Jews" or "Muslims" or "the Chinese hordes/the Yellow Peril" (member that one?) or in Buttsoiler's history-depivation tank, "Liberals". Some are religions, some are nationalities, some are political factions --- what they all have in common is they get their definitions painted in a new coat of Bullshit so they can be sold as "demons".

Demons which, by the way, you'll have to give up you civil liberties yea that we may smite them. And that's exactly what was going on with the Red Scare/Red Channels/Joe McCarthy bullshit. See it for what it is --- opportunistic demagoguery playing on fear of "eeebil deeemons".

1) You quoted yourself. You used to go by "Rottweiler"?

2) Nice rant, but I disagree.

You seem to be quoting my post but I have no idea who you're addresing here. I have never needed to change my user name here; I started as Pogo and I've never needed to run away from my history.

If it is me you're addessing, be specific about what you "disagee" with. If it's somebody else please clarify so we know where we are.

Scroll up and reread my post to you; you quoted yourself and called yourself "buttsoiler".

I have never in my life gone by "Buttsoiler". When you learn to read get back to me and we'll go from there.

Apparently you have no disagreement then. Fair enough.

 

[Divine Wind]

1) Interesting you quoted yourself and labelled it "buttsoiler". A confession?

2) Even FDR didn't like commies. Same for Truman and JFK.

1) You've been here longer than I --- you should remember his previous name he's running away from -- "Rottweiler". Hence --- "Buttsoiler".

2) Truman was a simplistic idiot and one of the most destructive POTUSes of the 20th century, exactly because he couldn't be bothered to scrutinize bullshit advice he was getting, particulaly from Jimmy Byrnes. He enabled the Red Scare to happen through his uncurious negligence. FDR would have seen right through that manipulating shit, and he would have had the stones to denounce it. Truman just rolled over.

"Commies" has nothing to do with the point. That's just the label of the era in a long list of labels. The point is Demonization, Dichotomy, the black/white "good/evil" bullshit mindset. Truman is as guilty as anybody of enabling it, allowing it to fester and even encouraging it. He was an intellectual wimp.

Witch hunts change their shirts regularly. In that era, "Commies". In other eras, "Catholics", or "Irish" or "Jews" or "Muslims" or "the Chinese hordes/the Yellow Peril" (member that one?) or in Buttsoiler's history-depivation tank, "Liberals". Some are religions, some are nationalities, some are political factions --- what they all have in common is they get their definitions painted in a new coat of Bullshit so they can be sold as "demons".

Demons which, by the way, you'll have to give up you civil liberties yea that we may smite them. And that's exactly what was going on with the Red Scare/Red Channels/Joe McCarthy bullshit. See it for what it is --- opportunistic demagoguery playing on fear of "eeebil deeemons".

1) You quoted yourself. You used to go by "Rottweiler"?

2) Nice rant, but I disagree.

You seem to be quoting my post but I have no idea who you're addresing here. I have never needed to change my user name here; I started as Pogo and I've never needed to run away from my history.

If it is me you're addessing, be specific about what you "disagee" with. If it's somebody else please clarify so we know where we are.

Scroll up and reread my post to you; you quoted yourself and called yourself "buttsoiler".

I have never in my life gone by "Buttsoiler". When you learn to read get back to me and we'll go from there.

Apparently you have no disagreement then. Fair enough.

But you quoted yourself and said "And btw Buttsoiler...":

Funny, but, sadly, more true than the Left will admit. Yes, shutting down others for their views is not in keeping with the spirit of our Founders. In California, it's the Left shutting down RW views. Elsewhere, it's the Right shutting down LW views. This forum is a microcosm of such views. Very few here really walk the walk when it comes to supporting the rights of other Americans.

I doh't recall where the right has shut down leftist views. If there is one I haven't heard about, I'd still say it's a ten to one ration if not more.

Hollywood Blacklist

Kent State Shootings - Ohio History Central

Republican lawmakers introduce bills to curb protesting in at least 18 states

Dude...we are talking about TODAY and you posted one link from 1947 (Hollywood) and one link from the Kent State shooting in the 1960's (which I'm not sure you can blame on conservatives as it was law enforcement on a liberal campus that engaged in the shooting).

Show us something from the last 12 months. Show us the right shutting down a Hillary Clinton event, assaulting her supporters, or rioting on campuses.

"We're all socialists now!" Finland PM when ACA passed....

Finland!

Population 5.5 million. You're going to have to look up the name of the prime minister, aren't you?

So what he said about Obamacare is relevant, how?

I love the way the desperate partisanshits scramble to insert all these qualifications like "what the population of Finland is" and "in the last 12 months only" and "yabbut that was almost 80 years ago". They're losing, and they know it.

Meanwhile speaking of the last 12 months minutes, this thread just went up:

This absolutely made my night. The Shakespeare play in Central Park, which is directed by Jew, Tony Kushner got a much needed and unexpected surprise. During the play, right-wingers disrupted the play and rushed the stage. This is beautiful. It's about time the right-wing throws out this "we're above that" shit and starts to fight the left using their own tactics. Standing whistling ovation to those who disrupted this hate play. Let this be just the beginning!!!

BOOM!! Protesters INTERRUPT Trump Assassination Play – RUSH STAGE — Screaming “Goebbels Would Be Proud!” (VIDEO)

I didn't have time to read it, just passing it on.

But as far as Composition/Generalization fallacies and who's dividing who, I find this phrase particularly revealing:

"directed by Jew, Tony Kushner"

Yow! Negroes! Save me!!

And btw Buttsoiler, about your fear of examining what went down "almost 80 years ago" --- that's exactly what produced your perversion of what the word "Liberal" means, and you still haven't figured it out, so damn straight it's relevant. That was the sowing of seeds of division that are still sprouting today. And UNTIL you figure it out, it will remain relevant.

​

As for disagreements, I disagree with political partisans who feel only their is correct and that everyone else is wrong. I disagree with people who see the human world in black and white rather than it's natural palette of grays.

 

[Pogo]

1) You've been here longer than I --- you should remember his previous name he's running away from -- "Rottweiler". Hence --- "Buttsoiler".

2) Truman was a simplistic idiot and one of the most destructive POTUSes of the 20th century, exactly because he couldn't be bothered to scrutinize bullshit advice he was getting, particulaly from Jimmy Byrnes. He enabled the Red Scare to happen through his uncurious negligence. FDR would have seen right through that manipulating shit, and he would have had the stones to denounce it. Truman just rolled over.

"Commies" has nothing to do with the point. That's just the label of the era in a long list of labels. The point is Demonization, Dichotomy, the black/white "good/evil" bullshit mindset. Truman is as guilty as anybody of enabling it, allowing it to fester and even encouraging it. He was an intellectual wimp.

Witch hunts change their shirts regularly. In that era, "Commies". In other eras, "Catholics", or "Irish" or "Jews" or "Muslims" or "the Chinese hordes/the Yellow Peril" (member that one?) or in Buttsoiler's history-depivation tank, "Liberals". Some are religions, some are nationalities, some are political factions --- what they all have in common is they get their definitions painted in a new coat of Bullshit so they can be sold as "demons".

Demons which, by the way, you'll have to give up you civil liberties yea that we may smite them. And that's exactly what was going on with the Red Scare/Red Channels/Joe McCarthy bullshit. See it for what it is --- opportunistic demagoguery playing on fear of "eeebil deeemons".

1) You quoted yourself. You used to go by "Rottweiler"?

2) Nice rant, but I disagree.

You seem to be quoting my post but I have no idea who you're addresing here. I have never needed to change my user name here; I started as Pogo and I've never needed to run away from my history.

If it is me you're addessing, be specific about what you "disagree" with. If it's somebody else please clarify so we know where we are.

Scroll up and reread my post to you; you quoted yourself and called yourself "buttsoiler".

I have never in my life gone by "Buttsoiler". When you learn to read get back to me and we'll go from there.

Apparently you have no disagreement then. Fair enough.

But you quoted yourself and said "And btw Buttsoiler...":

I doh't recall where the right has shut down leftist views. If there is one I haven't heard about, I'd still say it's a ten to one ration if not more.

Hollywood Blacklist

Kent State Shootings - Ohio History Central

Republican lawmakers introduce bills to curb protesting in at least 18 states

Dude...we are talking about TODAY and you posted one link from 1947 (Hollywood) and one link from the Kent State shooting in the 1960's (which I'm not sure you can blame on conservatives as it was law enforcement on a liberal campus that engaged in the shooting).

Show us something from the last 12 months. Show us the right shutting down a Hillary Clinton event, assaulting her supporters, or rioting on campuses.

"We're all socialists now!" Finland PM when ACA passed....

Finland!

Population 5.5 million. You're going to have to look up the name of the prime minister, aren't you?

So what he said about Obamacare is relevant, how?

I love the way the desperate partisanshits scramble to insert all these qualifications like "what the population of Finland is" and "in the last 12 months only" and "yabbut that was almost 80 years ago". They're losing, and they know it.

Meanwhile speaking of the last 12 months minutes, this thread just went up:

This absolutely made my night. The Shakespeare play in Central Park, which is directed by Jew, Tony Kushner got a much needed and unexpected surprise. During the play, right-wingers disrupted the play and rushed the stage. This is beautiful. It's about time the right-wing throws out this "we're above that" shit and starts to fight the left using their own tactics. Standing whistling ovation to those who disrupted this hate play. Let this be just the beginning!!!

BOOM!! Protesters INTERRUPT Trump Assassination Play – RUSH STAGE — Screaming “Goebbels Would Be Proud!” (VIDEO)

I didn't have time to read it, just passing it on.

But as far as Composition/Generalization fallacies and who's dividing who, I find this phrase particularly revealing:

"directed by Jew, Tony Kushner"

Yow! Negroes! Save me!!

And btw Buttsoiler, about your fear of examining what went down "almost 80 years ago" --- that's exactly what produced your perversion of what the word "Liberal" means, and you still haven't figured it out, so damn straight it's relevant. That was the sowing of seeds of division that are still sprouting today. And UNTIL you figure it out, it will remain relevant.

​

It's a continuation of the previous. Sorry the simple navigation of a message board nest is beyond your ken. As I said when you learn to read perhaps you can catch up.

Now watch this --- I'll proceed to continue my own point about other divisive threads above, which does NOT mean I'm responding to you; it's a demonstration of how this works:

Briefly last night --- I didn't get a chance to copy it here --- there was a thread started by Steve McRacist about "no wonder Steve Scalise got shot -- his security was non-white". It's more of the same thing, yet another refutation of the original bullshit point that division doesn't come from the right.

He's referring by the way to David Bailey, the Capitol police officer who was shot in the ankle while taking out the shooter, who came out to the Congressional baseball game on crutches to throw out the first pitch and in doing so got a well-deserved standing ovation from literally everybody. Except of course the racists like McRacist, who wet their pants because the man is black.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Get a load of this.................A play in the park depicting Trump getting assassinated..................Some have pulled sponsorship others now so much..............Like the NY Times and American Express....................

A freaking play that shows our current POTUS being killed in it.........................and the left thinks we are the ones with the problem.

The more I see of this.............the more I'm ready to tell them to

AmEx, Trump death play don't budge after Delta, BofA bolt


Shortly after Delta Airlines and Bank of America (BofA) pulled their sponsorship of the New York City Public Theater’s Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar that depicted President Donald Trump as the slain emperor, American Express (AmEx) refused to pull its funding and the theater company will not budge after the public’s backlash.

Much of the play’s tragedy stems from the characters’ neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favor of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines...
Cassius can be seen as a man who has gone to the extreme in cultivating his public persona. Caesar, describing his distrust of Cassius, tells Antony that the problem with Cassius is his lack of a private life—his seeming refusal to acknowledge his own sensibilities or to nurture his own spirit. Such a man, Caesar fears, will let nothing interfere with his ambition. Indeed, Cassius lacks all sense of personal honor and shows himself to be a ruthless schemer.
SparkNotes: Julius Caesar: Themes, Motifs & Symbols

Julius Caesar is an exploration of political machinations and what happens when they go too far. It's not as much about killing Caesar as taking a hard look at why the conspirators did it, the real motivations for it.
Take a look at some of the Sparks Notes above. Notice anything timely in there that sounds like what we are discussing here, now? At least in my opinion, the conspirators do NOT come out of this smelling like a rose.
Maybe it is a good year to be putting on Julius Caesar. Watch the play with a Roman toga'd Caesar if it makes you feel better, and then get back to us on how it's a leftie plot of violence against our POTUS.

Setting Shakespeare's plays in the modern world is a common directorial decision. He is still relevant; there is nothing new under the sun; we still behave pretty much the same as we always have.

And I'm sure you would have felt the same way if the right created the same act only using Obama instead.

Totally beside the point. I respected Obama for the most part, but I'm not a Dem.

No, the point you are trying to make is that this "art" is anything other than an attack on our President, and I disagree. If it were DumBama, the country would have been outraged. It would be the main story on MSM for a week. Violent protestors and activists would probably have physically attacked the actors on day two. It would have not been tolerated by the left.

I have not looked into the play at all but ALL Art is supposed to challenge the current complacency. If it doesn't do that --- it's not Art. The other truism is that neither you nor anybody else gets to sit and declare "the only thing it can mean is X". That's abject bullshit. Art is made to be subjective for the viewer. By definition it cannot be "quantified" into ones and zeroes.

Ignoring my point the play is more about who the actor represents than it is a message or art. So again, what would the lefts reaction have been if righties created the same thing only depicting Obama? I bet not one would have considered it anything other than an attack on the President of the United States.

 

[Pogo]

Much of the play’s tragedy stems from the characters’ neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favor of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines...
Cassius can be seen as a man who has gone to the extreme in cultivating his public persona. Caesar, describing his distrust of Cassius, tells Antony that the problem with Cassius is his lack of a private life—his seeming refusal to acknowledge his own sensibilities or to nurture his own spirit. Such a man, Caesar fears, will let nothing interfere with his ambition. Indeed, Cassius lacks all sense of personal honor and shows himself to be a ruthless schemer.
SparkNotes: Julius Caesar: Themes, Motifs & Symbols

Julius Caesar is an exploration of political machinations and what happens when they go too far. It's not as much about killing Caesar as taking a hard look at why the conspirators did it, the real motivations for it.
Take a look at some of the Sparks Notes above. Notice anything timely in there that sounds like what we are discussing here, now? At least in my opinion, the conspirators do NOT come out of this smelling like a rose.
Maybe it is a good year to be putting on Julius Caesar. Watch the play with a Roman toga'd Caesar if it makes you feel better, and then get back to us on how it's a leftie plot of violence against our POTUS.

Setting Shakespeare's plays in the modern world is a common directorial decision. He is still relevant; there is nothing new under the sun; we still behave pretty much the same as we always have.

And I'm sure you would have felt the same way if the right created the same act only using Obama instead.

Totally beside the point. I respected Obama for the most part, but I'm not a Dem.

No, the point you are trying to make is that this "art" is anything other than an attack on our President, and I disagree. If it were DumBama, the country would have been outraged. It would be the main story on MSM for a week. Violent protestors and activists would probably have physically attacked the actors on day two. It would have not been tolerated by the left.

I have not looked into the play at all but ALL Art is supposed to challenge the current complacency. If it doesn't do that --- it's not Art. The other truism is that neither you nor anybody else gets to sit and declare "the only thing it can mean is X". That's abject bullshit. Art is made to be subjective for the viewer. By definition it cannot be "quantified" into ones and zeroes.

Ignoring my point the play is more about who the actor represents than it is a message or art. So again, what would the lefts reaction have been if righties created the same thing only depicting Obama? I bet not one would have considered it anything other than an attack on the President of the United States.

Irrelevant speculation. And deflection. I corrected you on how Art works.

Also a continuance of the same Composition Fallacy --- there IS NO "the left's reaction" Nothing in "the left" or "the right" is unanimous.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tactics of the left............by order of the DNC..............caught on tape......................part of wikileaks...........


Enjoy and watch the other videos after................These are TACTICS used by the DNC and hard core left..........Yet they want compromise from us............

ENJOY

 

[Coyote]

How has the left limited free speech?

Let's see....

1. They assault people in public to shut them up

2. They riot on campuses to shut people up

3. They flood university administrators with complaints to stop anyone who doesn't have a left-wing agenda from speaking

4. They engaged in violence to shut down a Trump political rally in Chicago

Shall I continue?

3 episodes repeated endlessly= DUPED!!

3 episodes?!? Try hundreds, snowflake.

I think we can find multiple instances of both sides trying to repress free speech either through public actions like violent demonstrations or shouting down speakers yes? Can we agree on that?

I'd like to make a couple of points. The left is more likely to be young and more likely to be deeply passionate, impatient and get out of control. The right are more likely to be older, more experienced in how things work and likely to work through institutions to effect change. Do you think that is accurate?

Within that is the assumption being made that on or the other ideology is inherently violent. I disagree with that if it were true we would have been in a constant state of violence for ages and that hasn't happened.

You are absolutely right in condemning those demonstrations that turn into violent assaults and property destruction. I agree. I also disagree with the trend in some universities to limit speakers based on ideology or potential for causing offense and we should speak up about it. On the other hand the university I work for allowed Milo Y to speak. They allowed demonstrations. There was no violence. Milo called out some faculty in a deeply insulting way and wasn't stopped. Our dean and president issued an apology for that, but also pointed out the importance of a tradition in allowing diverse opinions. That's a left wing institution.

Demonstrations are free speech. Violence is also free speech. But violence is the point at which we put a limit on free speech. I think you will find most agree with that.

 

[Dim Bulb]

How has the left limited free speech?

Let's see....

1. They assault people in public to shut them up

2. They riot on campuses to shut people up

3. They flood university administrators with complaints to stop anyone who doesn't have a left-wing agenda from speaking

4. They engaged in violence to shut down a Trump political rally in Chicago

Shall I continue?

3 episodes repeated endlessly= DUPED!!

3 episodes?!? Try hundreds, snowflake.

I think we can find multiple instances of both sides trying to repress free speech either through public actions like violent demonstrations or shouting down speakers yes? Can we agree on that?
You are so good to post this thoughtful take. As soon as a thread devolves into "they started it" I think about elementary
I'd like to make a couple of points. The left is more likely to be young and more likely to be deeply passionate, impatient and get out of control. The right are more likely to be older, more experienced in how things work and likely to work through institutions to effect change. Do you think that is accurate?

Within that is the assumption being made that on or the other ideology is inherently violent. I disagree with that if it were true we would have been in a constant state of violence for ages and that hasn't happened.

You are absolutely right in condemning those demonstrations that turn into violent assaults and property destruction. I agree. I also disagree with the trend in some universities to limit speakers based on ideology or potential for causing offense and we should speak up about it. On the other hand the university I work for allowed Milo Y to speak. They allowed demonstrations. There was no violence. Milo called out some faculty in a deeply insulting way and wasn't stopped. Our dean and president issued an apology for that, but also pointed out the importance of a tradition in allowing diverse opinions. That's a left wing institution.

Demonstrations are free speech. Violence is also free speech. But violence is the point at which we put a limit on free speech. I think you will find most agree with that.

Agree. When threads devolve into "they started it" I just think to myself how is it that grown ups think that argument advances us as a society and a culture? "They started it" didn't work in elementary school and it ain't working now, folks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'd like to make a couple of points. The left is more likely to be young and more likely to be deeply passionate, impatient and get out of control. The right are more likely to be older, more experienced in how things work and likely to work through institutions to effect change. Do you think that is accurate?

Not in the baseball shooters case. He was 66 years old.

 

[Coyote]

The Klan were not so much "conservatives" as "übeconservatives"

The KKK was founded by the Dumbocrats, you dimwit. There wasn't a conservative in sight.

That's commonly stated. But parties aren't ideologies. They change over the years. The southern democrats of that era were very conservative. After civil rights they shifted to the Republican Party giving the Republicans a huge stronghold in the formerly Democrat controlled south. It also meant a shift in the ideology of the Republicans that coincided with the pro civil rights shift in the Dems. It's all history though and neither party today is the party of fifty years ago.

 

[Coyote]

I'd like to make a couple of points. The left is more likely to be young and more likely to be deeply passionate, impatient and get out of control. The right are more likely to be older, more experienced in how things work and likely to work through institutions to effect change. Do you think that is accurate?

Not in the baseball shooters case. He was 66 years old.

Yes, but that isn't common is it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And I'm sure you would have felt the same way if the right created the same act only using Obama instead.

Totally beside the point. I respected Obama for the most part, but I'm not a Dem.

No, the point you are trying to make is that this "art" is anything other than an attack on our President, and I disagree. If it were DumBama, the country would have been outraged. It would be the main story on MSM for a week. Violent protestors and activists would probably have physically attacked the actors on day two. It would have not been tolerated by the left.

I have not looked into the play at all but ALL Art is supposed to challenge the current complacency. If it doesn't do that --- it's not Art. The other truism is that neither you nor anybody else gets to sit and declare "the only thing it can mean is X". That's abject bullshit. Art is made to be subjective for the viewer. By definition it cannot be "quantified" into ones and zeroes.

Ignoring my point the play is more about who the actor represents than it is a message or art. So again, what would the lefts reaction have been if righties created the same thing only depicting Obama? I bet not one would have considered it anything other than an attack on the President of the United States.

Irrelevant speculation. And deflection. I corrected you on how Art works.

Also a continuance of the same Composition Fallacy --- there IS NO "the left's reaction" Nothing in "the left" or "the right" is unanimous.

Maybe not, so let's just say "most."

We don't have to wonder if CNN, MSNBC, PBS or others would have called it art. We know what they would have said about it.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I'd like to make a couple of points. The left is more likely to be young and more likely to be deeply passionate, impatient and get out of control. The right are more likely to be older, more experienced in how things work and likely to work through institutions to effect change. Do you think that is accurate?

Not in the baseball shooters case. He was 66 years old.

Some of us think that 66 is young. Just saying...

 

[eagle1462010]

I think we can find multiple instances of both sides trying to repress free speech either through public actions like violent demonstrations or shouting down speakers yes? Can we agree on that?

Yes

I'd like to make a couple of points. The left is more likely to be young and more likely to be deeply passionate, impatient and get out of control. The right are more likely to be older, more experienced in how things work and likely to work through institutions to effect change. Do you think that is accurate?

The left has shown it's violent side for a long time.

And change is being acted upon via the law as we speak regarding conservative values.

Within that is the assumption being made that on or the other ideology is inherently violent. I disagree with that if it were true we would have been in a constant state of violence for ages and that hasn't happened.

We disagree. One side has been more violent for decades.......

You are absolutely right in condemning those demonstrations that turn into violent assaults and property destruction. I agree. I also disagree with the trend in some universities to limit speakers based on ideology or potential for causing offense and we should speak up about it. On the other hand the university I work for allowed Milo Y to speak. They allowed demonstrations. There was no violence. Milo called out some faculty in a deeply insulting way and wasn't stopped. Our dean and president issued an apology for that, but also pointed out the importance of a tradition in allowing diverse opinions. That's a left wing institution.

Some are still reasonable..............Berkley is insane.

Demonstrations are free speech. Violence is also free speech. But violence is the point at which we put a limit on free speech. I think you will find most agree with that.

Inciting violence or organizing it is a CRIME......We are a nation of laws....don't you think.

18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions
b)
As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.