Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 15 minutes ago, James Arryn said: For shame, Many...that title, for shame. You should've seen the first draft. Horrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 16 hours ago, lokisnow said: Men being allowed by society to compartmentalize away their entitlement to sexual encounters in spite of restrictions on said is in fact the core of the entire problem. because it's misogyny. Predators like bill Clinton being allowed to prey on subordinates is wrong but it is a reflection of how much we desire to perpetuate our misogynistic culture. A society and culture that encourages us to say he is allowed to break contracts and promises and trusts but this behavior is allowed to be compartmentalized as having no relevance to anyone else because the victims had vaginas is fundamentally wrong and a sickening statement steeped in cultural misogyny and male privilege. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. If you're suggesting that society views male and female infidelity with a double standard, yes, that's absolutely true. If you're suggesting that my post was an example of that, I don't think that's a fair characterisation at all. Clinton was the example I picked because he's the most recent US President who has shown infidelity but also governed reasonably well. It's true that there are aspects to many of his infidelities that are problematic in terms of power relationships, so that may make him a bad example. However, the general point that a breach (or apparent breach) of the marriage contract may be, but is not necessarily, an indication of a politician's governing ability remains. That's true of both male and female politicians - in fact it's true of people in all walks of life. Some people are trustworthy in professional life but not in personal life, or vice versa. People are complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Why is no one discussing how CNN just legitimized Trumps 'fake news' comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Stego said: Why is no one discussing how CNN just legitimized Trumps 'fake news' comments? 'Clinton News Network' legitimized Trump? Now that is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 And here we go again: But, but, but, they weren’t true conservatives!!!!!https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/opinion/the-gop-rejects-conservatism.html Quote Conservative income redistribution doesn’t look like liberal redistribution. Conservatives tend to like their redistribution done at the local level, and they like to use market-friendly mechanisms, like child tax credits, mobility vouchers and wage subsidies. But the intent is the same: to give those who are struggling more security and opportunity. I’d say whenever conservatives do come up with a decent idea, liberals are quite willing to “steal” the idea and promote it, causing conservatives to turn against it, well cause liberals now support it, so it must be bad. This is pretty much what happened on Cap and Trade. And I think this how it worked with the EITC. ................................................................. Oh noes, not single payer, cause golly that’s Socialism!!!! http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/support-the-aca-growing-republicans-go-after-single-payer Quote Last week, for example, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said, “If we don’t get this done and we end up with Democratic majorities in ‘18, we’ll have single payer. That’s what we’ll be dealing with.” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) added that Congress has to pass an unpopular far-right bill, no matter what, because the alternative is single payer, “and that’s socialized medicine.” See here is a difference I do believe between conservatives and most American liberals. To conservatives, they’ll just be against something because “golly, that’s socialism!!!” whereas most liberals really don’t give a fuck ultimately whether it’s socialism or not, but are just interested in whether something works and solves a problem. And there are very good reasons to believe that single payer is the most efficient route to providing universal coverage and lowering healthcare cost. I simply don’t give a fuck whether Adam Smith or whether Karl Marx came up with the idea ultimately. And then of course you have conservatives thinking they can create conservative “safe spaces” by just saying “golly that’s socialism!!! We can’t talk about that!!!”(conservative political correctness). It’s kind of like that conservative idiot (perhaps I’m being redundant here) Rick Santorum saying you can’t talk about class because “golly, that’s Marxist talk!!!”. But you know, class does exist, and you don’t necessarily have to be a hardcore Marxist to recognize that fact and to conclude it’s probably something worth talking about, even if it makes conservative sorts of people uncomfortable., to the point where they say, “golly, that’s socialism, we can’t talk about it!”. But you know this isn’t the 1950s, and really I think people should just get tired of conservatives trying to shut down discussion of the technocratic merits of a policy by saying, “but, but, golly that’s socialism!!!!”. .............................................. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/143534/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-backfired-not-fast Quote Has Seattle’s minimum wage hike backfired? Not so fast. On Monday, researchers at the University of Washington released a much-anticipated studythat looked at the effects of the first stages of Seattle’s $15 minimum wage increase, which has been phasing in since 2015. The paper found that Seattle’s second wage bump to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by 9 percent.These findings sharply diverge from what has been previously reported—only last week, a study by researchers at Berkeley found that Seattle’s minimum wage increase had only a negligible impact on jobs. I’m still trying to work though the latest Seattle Minimum wage study, but for me,right now, is that the biggest red flag about it is that it finds no negative employment effects in the restaurant sector, where you’d expect it to. There is a reason why the minimum wage literature focuses heavily on the restaurant sector. That is because a huge number of minimum wage workers work in that sector. Now it seems to me the authors of the paper try to explain that by saying that restaurants just substituted to more high skill workers. But, that argument doesn’t sit quite right with me. It only works, in my estimation, if you view high skill workers as being perfect substitutes for lower skilled labor. And I just don’t see why that would be the case. If I had to guess where the authors made an error (and I’m not saying they just made one), I’d suspect it’s how they constructed “Synthetic Seattle”. The synthetic method is recognized as a useful valid technique, but in creating “Synthetic Seattle” the researches relied only on other localities in the state of Washington. And it would seem to me that using other metropolitan areas (at least some for the donors), with similar characteristics to Seattle, outside of Washington would have been better or more appropriate (they couldn’t though because the data they were using only applied to Washington). Quote The UW study, which is partly commissioned by the city of Seattle, is sure to garner a lot of attention since the authors had exclusive access to detailed state data on hours and earnings of workers. Republicans are already using the study to excoriate “liberal policies”: And a note to Ted Cruz: Where exactly have your conservative “pro growth” policies helped the poor? The Republican Party keeps on talkin’ about these “pro growth” policies (read tax cuts for the rich), but you know they never deliver the goods, the way conservatives promise. So, may I suggest that you have yourself a nice tall warm glass of shut the fuck up? What Cruz is doing here is making a tired old conservative argument. “Liberals have good intentions..but, but,….” They have been making this kind of argument for ages. But it’s not like support for higher minimum wages isn’t backed by theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. And it’s not like liberals don’t recognize that at some point raising the minimum wage will likely backfire. So, could you like drop this stupid ass tired old conservative argument? On this growth stuff the Republican Party is kinda like the guy whom you wrestled in high school. He keeps talkin’ about how awesome he is and how he is going to do this and how he is going to do that. And then you go out onto the mat and pin the guy in about 20 seconds, and after getting pinned, the guy just keeps right on talkin’ about how awesome he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Stego said: Why is no one discussing how CNN just legitimized Trumps 'fake news' comments? 'cause CNN did the right thing; retracting the story and had 3 journalists resign? And no one will have their opinion of the media swayed one way or the other by this episode. The only lasting take away from this is the difference between CNN's response to this story and Fox New's response to Seth Rich story (which Fox did retract, but no one was fired, resigned, or punished in any way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Stego said: Why is no one discussing how CNN just legitimized Trumps 'fake news' comments? An addendum to @Fez's comment, fake news is an intentionally inaccurate story, so no, it does not legitimize Trump's comments. Unlike Trump's White House, which does release intentionally fake stories all the time. Also, Huckabee-Sanders' press conference was super creepy....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 On 6/28/2017 at 8:53 AM, Fez said: 'cause CNN did the right thing; retracting the story and had 3 journalists resign? And no one will have their opinion of the media swayed one way or the other by this episode. The only lasting take away from this is the difference between CNN's response to this story and Fox New's response to Seth Rich story (which Fox did retract, but no one was fired, resigned, or punished in any way). I'd say rather than going into the factual and technical details of why a conservative sort of person's argument or point is not correct, just say "Golly, that's conservatism!!" and just leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Since some of you don't seem to be up on this, please check out the top trending YouTube video right now where a CNN editor admits the Russia coverage is all fabricated -- among other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I don't know. It seems like this is pretty conservative. So, why bother checking into details? I'll just dismiss it by saying, "golly that's conservatism!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 8 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said: Total honesty here, I'm really burned that neo-nazi's ruined that haircut. It looked great on Jimmy Darmody. Ya, but Darmody was a good-lookin' fella. This guy is -- not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 24 minutes ago, Stego said: Since some of you don't seem to be up on this, please check out the top trending YouTube video right now where a CNN editor admits the Russia coverage is all fabricated -- among other things. This is a Lifestyles editor, right? Who is stating the obvious. There's no smoking gun. No duh. Sara Huckabee Sanders says this is news, so it's a bombshell? /It's all the same BS justifications we've heard before. "This is all about ratings" (ah, yeah we'd like to know whether or not our President colluded with a foreign power, that's kind of a big deal) "It's not like we haven't mucked around with other countries elections" (This is relevant how?) Just a steaming pile of bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Its absurdly easy for a small group of dedicated folks to game Youtube (or any search-based website) and cause something to 'trend.' That video has 2 million views, which is nothing. Even if each one of those views were a unique viewer, which they aren't, that would be nothing. Anyway, in real news, Rand Paul has sent his list of demands to McConnell. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDavweNVoAAkhVS.jpg , https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDavwdxV0AADhsa.jpg He might get the first one, it might even be a good (albeit relatively minor) idea; I don't know enough about the economics of group insurance to know for sure. But I think the rest are complete non-starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: This is a Lifestyles editor, right? Who is stating the obvious. There's no smoking gun. No duh. Sara Huckabee Sanders says this is news, so it's a bombshell? Not to mention it's a James O'Keefe video so given his history, what's in the video isn't likely the entire story. At the end of the day, CNN published a false story, held themselves accountable for it and fired the wrongdoers. That's what happens when people's jobs are at stake. The White House says multiple false statements every single day and they're there for 4 years until the voters can hold them accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 And the one talking point that I keep seeing lately drives me up the fucking wall. "This is a hoax to cover or excuse Hillary's loss". Really? Like an excuse is important at this point? Who besides Hillary wants an excuse? So the media is covering this story at her behest? So fucking braindead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I'm not a Trump supporter. Not even 1%. However, these videos/articles prove without a doubt that CNN is a news fabricator -- fake news. It absolutely validates his positions. I'm disgusted by it, but seeing it any other way is partisan nonsense. They should lose their broadcast license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Another video was just released. Van Jones. Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 40 minutes ago, Stego said: I'm not a Trump supporter. Not even 1%. However, these videos/articles prove without a doubt that CNN is a news fabricator -- fake news. It absolutely validates his positions. I'm disgusted by it, but seeing it any other way is partisan nonsense. They should lose their broadcast license. The video should give everyone pause about the incentives of news media to hype / mislead / push the boundaries / fabricate / lie about news stories for ratings and money. But, because it received only two million YouTube views (likely not even unique!), the video isn't even real news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 If you want people to look at YouTube videos, you can link them. If you're talking about the O'Keefe video, he has historically edited footage to make it appear that something happened that's entirely different from what actually happened. That's literally his schtick. It is evidence of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Here are the two videos: where they talk to a senior producer in Atlanta on Health about Trump and Russia, and the one-sentence talk with Van Jones. As WaPo points out, what immediately strikes me is what is left out. Quote Yet the video includes several journalistic evasions and shortcuts that would likely elicit outrage from critics if a mainstream news organization had employed the same techniques. For example, it never mentions that Bonifield is a producer of health and medical stories, raising questions about how relevant his views are, and how informed he is, about CNN’s political coverage. It also doesn’t disclose that he is based in Atlanta — not in Washington or New York, where most of CNN’s coverage of national affairs and politics are produced. Instead, the video identifies him a “supervising producer,” suggesting a senior decision-making role. O’Keefe, who appears on the video as a kind of master of ceremonies, furthers this impression by saying the footage describes “the real motivation behind our dominant media organizations.” But CNN said Bonifield speaks only for himself. In a statement, it said stood by him and that “diversity of personal opinion is what makes CNN strong. We welcome it and embrace it.” The network said it had no plans to take any disciplinary action. The video also doesn’t identify the man to whom Bonifield is speaking, nor does it provide any clue about how he came to record Bonifield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.