How in the world..

#253
#253
jkell24 said:
Is Rupert Murdoch also over the Fox channel? I know the guy owns Fox News and assume they are under the same brand. I can't imagine he would be too thrilled about a show on his network doing that.
Click to expand...

It is all satire, of course they are going to poke fun at Fox, why wouldn't they?

The same was when Married With Children was on, it poked fun at Fox all time.......

The Simpsons ream on every one!
 
#254
#254
God help me I might be stepping into something here but let me see if I can wrap my head around some of the arguments without taking some kind of "side".

Us getting slaves and it's impact on Africa.
Short of there not being a market for slavery, which could very well have changed the dynamics of things in Africa, I find it extremely difficult to tie anything of Africa's current woes to their past slave involvement trade with us. Parts of Africa that had little or nothing to do with slavery have plenty of issues shared by those areas that did. I'm open to factual evidence against the assertion but right now, with what I know, most of Africa's problems are it's own.

The descendents
This one is tough because the only thing one has to go on is a subjective comparison. Having said that, if one were going to try to say "This person X is better off being the Y generational offspring of slaves here in the United States than if that bloodline had remained in Gambia." then I would find it difficult to refute that statement, at least as a generalization.

Justifying/Rationalizing
This one seems to cause a lot of people grief. I personally don't have a hard time separating issues when applying mens rea to the situation. If someone gets drunk and kills some guy driving home the fact that the guy he killed was later found to be a pedophile with a little girl chained up in his basement takes nothing away from the fact the first guy got drunk and killed a man. On the other hand, have you ever had someone do something that could have easily gotten you or somebody else injured or killed and try to justify it by saying "What's your problem? Nobody got hurt."? The problem, of course, is he's an idiot that could have gotten somebody killed. The fact he didn't in no way mitigates the fact he's an idiot, it just means he's a lucky idiot. Bottom line, there is at least a reasonable, if not 100% absolutely and factually verifiable, argument that those descended from slaves living in the US are in a better situation than if their bloodline had remained in Africa. Moreover, this point of view, for the reasons set forth above, can operate entirely outside the argument that "slavery was a good thing".

If you REALLY want to go to the other side there are some that say slavery was bad precisely because we now have all these descendents from slaves here now. I hope we don't really want to go down that road here but I thought it worth noting that there are people that argue slavery was very bad (which we'd all agree on) but do it for less than noble reasons.
 
#255
#255
jamesd1628 said:
You guys are afraid to say it because you think it makes you a racist. The liberal media has you so beaten down that you don't even see it.

Simple question: Would the average black person in America, who we can assume is the descendant of a slave, be better off where he/she is or better off if his/her ancestor had never been sold into slavery? The answer is obvious. Admitting that answer does not make you a racist, and it does not justify slavery. It is simply a historical truth. Don't let the liberals politicize the truth.
Click to expand...

So, you hate people other than whites?

:yes:
 
#256
#256
jamesd1628 said:
It's no use because the logic is flawed.

Do you people honestly not understand that something can be evil in and of itself, and yet something good can come from it? Just because the original cause is bad doesn’t mean that there can’t be some good effect somewhere along the way. Some people call it finding the silver lining. That is not a justification for the thing itself, merely an observation that, hey, at least something good came out of it. No, in the case of slavery, you are just too afraid to admit it because of political correctness. And you can’t even see it.
Click to expand...

Should we enslave the Iraqi people?

Would that solve the Iraq War problem?
 
#257
#257
hndog609 said:
God help me I might be stepping into something here but let me see if I can wrap my head around some of the arguments without taking some kind of "side".

Us getting slaves and it's impact on Africa.
Short of there not being a market for slavery, which could very well have changed the dynamics of things in Africa, I find it extremely difficult to tie anything of Africa's current woes to their past slave involvement trade with us. Parts of Africa that had little or nothing to do with slavery have plenty of issues shared by those areas that did. I'm open to factual evidence against the assertion but right now, with what I know, most of Africa's problems are it's own.

The descendents
This one is tough because the only thing one has to go on is a subjective comparison. Having said that, if one were going to try to say "This person X is better off being the Y generational offspring of slaves here in the United States than if that bloodline had remained in Gambia." then I would find it difficult to refute that statement, at least as a generalization.

Justifying/Rationalizing
This one seems to cause a lot of people grief. I personally don't have a hard time separating issues when applying mens rea to the situation. If someone gets drunk and kills some guy driving home the fact that the guy he killed was later found to be a pedophile with a little girl chained up in his basement takes nothing away from the fact the first guy got drunk and killed a man. On the other hand, have you ever had someone do something that could have easily gotten you or somebody else injured or killed and try to justify it by saying "What's your problem? Nobody got hurt."? The problem, of course, is he's an idiot that could have gotten somebody killed. The fact he didn't in no way mitigates the fact he's an idiot, it just means he's a lucky idiot. Bottom line, there is at least a reasonable, if not 100% absolutely and factually verifiable, argument that those descended from slaves living in the US are in a better situation than if their bloodline had remained in Africa. Moreover, this point of view, for the reasons set forth above, can operate entirely outside the argument that "slavery was a good thing".

If you REALLY want to go to the other side there are some that say slavery was bad precisely because we now have all these descendents from slaves here now. I hope we don't really want to go down that road here but I thought it worth noting that there are people that argue slavery was very bad (which we'd all agree on) but do it for less than noble reasons.
Click to expand...

Wow hndog, well done, I'm impressed.
 
#260
#260
OrangeEmpire said:
Should we enslave the Iraqi people?

Would that solve the Iraq War problem?
Click to expand...

They have been enslaved (in a sense) for many years before the U S and others removed Saddam. That is one of many reasons for the growing pains going on there now.
 
#261
#261
KB5252 said:
They have been enslaved (in a sense) for many years before the U S and others removed Saddam. That is one of many reasons for the growing pains going on there now.
Click to expand...

So there is actually truth to the statements I made....

In the end, having Saddam as their defacto ruler might actually turn out for the better in the long run?

Interesting......
 
#262
#262
OrangeEmpire said:
So there is actually truth to the statements I made....

In the end, having Saddam as their defacto ruler might actually turn out for the better in the long run?

Interesting......
Click to expand...

maybe but only many years from now. And mind you that he would have to have been removed because if he died naturally one of his psycho sons would have been next in line and from everything I've heard reported on them they would likely have been even crueler to their people.
 
#263
#263
KB5252 said:
maybe but only many years from now. And mind you that he would have to have been removed because if he died naturally one of his psycho sons would have been next in line and from everything I've heard reported on them they would likely have been even crueler to their people.
Click to expand...

Say, oh, I don't know.... a round number like 200 years.......

:question:
 
#264
#264
jkell24 said:
Is Rupert Murdoch also over the Fox channel? I know the guy owns Fox News and assume they are under the same brand. I can't imagine he would be too thrilled about a show on his network doing that.
Click to expand...

The Simpsons routinely make fun of Fox.
 
#265
#265
OrangeEmpire said:
You can't be serious, you don't think the Krusty character is a satire of Jewish people?
Click to expand...

Of course he is. That doesn't answer the question. When have the Simpsons devoted an entire episode to liberals? The Simpsons make fun of everyone. However, the opinions of the authors show through if you watch every episode, as I have.
 
#266
#266
kptvol said:
Of course he is. That doesn't answer the question. When have the Simpsons devoted an entire episode to liberals? The Simpsons make fun of everyone. However, the opinions of the authors show through if you watch every episode, as I have.
Click to expand...

The Ralph episode running for president.

The episodes dedicated to Mr. Smithers.......

The episodes dedicated to Major Quimby.....

The episodes dedicated to Krusty.....

The episodes dedicated to Sideshow Bob...........

Take any of the political tree house of horror skits...

The show is about every one..................!
 
#267
#267
OrangeEmpire said:
The Ralph episode running for president.

The episodes dedicated to Mr. Smithers.......

The episodes dedicated to Major Quimby.....

The episodes dedicated to Krusty.....

The episodes dedicated to Sideshow Bob...........

Take any of the political tree house of horror skits...

The show is about every one..................!
Click to expand...

I can't recall a political treehouse of horror skit except for the one that parodied the upcoming election of Dole and Clinton. Smithers = gay. Krusty = Jewish. Sideshow Bob = Republican. So, who is the liberal? Yes. They make fun of everyone. I get it. So does the Daily Show. That doesn't mean they aren't leaning to the left.
 
#268
#268
kptvol said:
I can't recall a political treehouse of horror skit except for the one that parodied the upcoming election of Dole and Clinton. Smithers = gay. Krusty = Jewish. Sideshow Bob = Republican. So, who is the liberal? Yes. They make fun of everyone. I get it. So does the Daily Show. That doesn't mean they aren't leaning to the left.
Click to expand...

All the Treehouse of Horror skits in the mid 90's that dealt with politics leaned toward the left. Oh well,

Sideshow Bob is a republican???????

I guess there is no further point to talk about this.

:yes:

I see why you think the show leans left.

Have a good one!
 
#269
#269
OrangeEmpire said:
All the Treehouse of Horror skits in the mid 90's that dealt with politics leaned toward the left. Oh well,

Sideshow Bob is a republican???????

I guess there is no further point to talk about this.

:yes:

I see why you think the show leans left.

Have a good one!
Click to expand...

Admitting that he regards himself as a liberal, Groening also said that he has been given unprecedented freedom by the conservative-oriented Fox TV network. He told the newspaper: "We've poked fun at Rupert Murdoch a number of times and some of the executives are worried about it, although Rupert himself seems to be very good natured. He played himself as 'evil billionaire tyrant Rupert Murdoch' and good for him."

The show leans to the left. It's just the way it is. I'm sure if I created a TV show I would try to make it neutral, but it would probably have a more conservative slant. The Simpsons leans to the left. That doesn't mean it's a bad show or that conservatives should stop watching it. That's just how it is.
 
#270
#270
kptvol said:
Admitting that he regards himself as a liberal, Groening also said that he has been given unprecedented freedom by the conservative-oriented Fox TV network. He told the newspaper: "We've poked fun at Rupert Murdoch a number of times and some of the executives are worried about it, although Rupert himself seems to be very good natured. He played himself as 'evil billionaire tyrant Rupert Murdoch' and good for him."

The show leans to the left. It's just the way it is. I'm sure if I created a TV show I would try to make it neutral, but it would probably have a more conservative slant. The Simpsons leans to the left. That doesn't mean it's a bad show or that conservatives should stop watching it. That's just how it is.
Click to expand...

If you say so......

:hi:
 
#271
#271
OrangeEmpire said:
If you say so......

:hi:
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not making stuff up. As near as I can tell, you are.

The only Treehouse of Horror I can find from the 90s that deals with politics is the episode where aliens replace Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. I would appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of another politically-themed Halloween episode.
 
#272
#272
kptvol said:
Honestly, I'm not making stuff up. As near as I can tell, you are.

The only Treehouse of Horror I can find from the 90s that deals with politics is the episode where aliens replace Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. I would appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of another politically-themed Halloween episode.
Click to expand...

No, it is ok......

:eek:k:
 
#273
#273
OrangeEmpire said:
No, it is ok......

:eek:k:
Click to expand...

I'm not calling you a liar, I simply think your recollection of the show might not be as clear as my own. Of course I've seen every episode about 15 times. I really, really think there is a liberal slant. I also think the authors at least somewhat try to avoid that slant most of the time. Still, it exists. It's not a bad thing and I still really like the show.
 
#274
#274
kptvol said:
I'm not calling you a liar, I simply think your recollection of the show might not be as clear as my own. Of course I've seen every episode about 15 times. I really, really think there is a liberal slant. I also think the authors at least somewhat try to avoid that slant most of the time. Still, it exists. It's not a bad thing and I still really like the show.
Click to expand...

Of course you are calling me a liar.

:eek:k:

I agree the show has a left leaning slant, but I do not believe it is ultra bias.

Like I said, not really to much to talk about when you think Sideshow Bob is a conservative character.

Have a good one!

:hi:
 
#275
#275
OrangeEmpire said:
Of course you are calling me a liar.

:eek:k:

I agree the show has a left leaning slant, but I do not believe it is ultra bias.

Like I said, not really to much to talk about when you think Sideshow Bob is a conservative character.

Have a good one!

:hi:
Click to expand...

Category:Fictional United States Republicans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sideshow Bob was the Republican mayoral candidate that once beat Joe Quimby. He was backed by Springfield's wealthiest residents and a Rush Limbaugh caricature.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top