Author Topic: Women's March  (Read 9196 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #245 on: January 26, 2017, 02:30:57 PM »
And the stock market is almost all driven by CONSUMER CONFIDENCE of FUTURE PROFITS.   If investors think that GE's number is risky because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to go all Draconian on environmental regs, or labor laws, or healthcare, the stock is going to go down (or at a minimum stay static).  Which is what happened in '08.   If investors think that GE's number is accurate, or even a little conservative, because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to promote a business friendly environment, the stock is going to rise.  We saw this as immediately as midnight on election night, as the moment that things started to swing for Trump, the futures market LIT UP, and stocks have been climbing ever since.  I won't say it's "automatic" like flipping a switch, but it is pretty immediate, and it is real.  This is fairly well documented.

Also, the stock market crashing in 2008 was pretty clearly due to a massive bubble that was going to pop no matter what.  Consumer confidence was an effect, not a cause of that.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you are really, really grasping at straws here to blame something on Obama, when it happened due to events that were set in motion even before Obama became a Senator.

You're entitled to your opinion, on both paragraphs.  I stand by my assertions.  I'm not a beginner in this regard (I hold an MBA from a top 10 business school, and have actually had this conversation with a professor of mine, formerly of the Federal Reserve Bank, and recognized by the Wall Street Journal for his accomplishments in international finance.).  Is it definitively provable? No, but the simplistic common wisdom that "it all happened before January 20-whatever, 2008, so therefore it's all Bush's fault, and Obama's just in to clean the mess" is just not accurate.   

The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.   
This is an interesting argument, and whether or not one agrees, I think it warrants consideration.  But that aside, I got somewhat lost along the way as to how this is relevant to the discussion in this thread.  Is it?
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 959
Re: Women's March
« Reply #246 on: January 26, 2017, 02:38:29 PM »
"At 11:55 p.m. ET, stocks hit their nadir, as we had S&P 500 futures falling 5%, hitting limit-down and halting trading below this level until the next morning.

End of discussion.  By 11:55pm, it was already abundantly clear that Trump was the overwhelming favorite to win the election.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20398
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Women's March
« Reply #247 on: January 26, 2017, 02:41:14 PM »
The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.
I believe you've said in the past that consumer confidence in this case crashed in large part because of the democrat themed policies Obama brought along, as opposed to nice, predictable republican policies. Even when Trump was the biggest wildcard ever conceivable it wasn't enough to blow things up because he's essentially still a free market, capitalist republican. So is it your assertion that the bubble continues floating along for another 8, 16, 24 years had Obama not been elected, only to burst whenever a democrat finally gets in? Frankly, your case for this suggests a pretty gnarly indictment of our economic system and I'd say the problem isn't with with Obama at all, but the system not stable enough to withstand the cyclical nature of our elected government.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #248 on: January 26, 2017, 02:48:39 PM »
And the stock market is almost all driven by CONSUMER CONFIDENCE of FUTURE PROFITS.   If investors think that GE's number is risky because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to go all Draconian on environmental regs, or labor laws, or healthcare, the stock is going to go down (or at a minimum stay static).  Which is what happened in '08.   If investors think that GE's number is accurate, or even a little conservative, because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to promote a business friendly environment, the stock is going to rise.  We saw this as immediately as midnight on election night, as the moment that things started to swing for Trump, the futures market LIT UP, and stocks have been climbing ever since.  I won't say it's "automatic" like flipping a switch, but it is pretty immediate, and it is real.  This is fairly well documented.

Also, the stock market crashing in 2008 was pretty clearly due to a massive bubble that was going to pop no matter what.  Consumer confidence was an effect, not a cause of that.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you are really, really grasping at straws here to blame something on Obama, when it happened due to events that were set in motion even before Obama became a Senator.

You're entitled to your opinion, on both paragraphs.  I stand by my assertions.  I'm not a beginner in this regard (I hold an MBA from a top 10 business school, and have actually had this conversation with a professor of mine, formerly of the Federal Reserve Bank, and recognized by the Wall Street Journal for his accomplishments in international finance.).  Is it definitively provable? No, but the simplistic common wisdom that "it all happened before January 20-whatever, 2008, so therefore it's all Bush's fault, and Obama's just in to clean the mess" is just not accurate.   

The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.   
This is an interesting argument, and whether or not one agrees, I think it warrants consideration.  But that aside, I got somewhat lost along the way as to how this is relevant to the discussion in this thread.  Is it?

It stemmed from a discussion about one poster here - nameless, but you should be able to figure it out pretty quickly - spewing information, calling it "fact", and being not at all interested in any other information that contradicts his "fact" (really just unsubstantiated opinion).   I countered with documented, cited facts put a reasonable hypothesis to them, and off we went to Tangentville.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #249 on: January 26, 2017, 02:51:28 PM »
"At 11:55 p.m. ET, stocks hit their nadir, as we had S&P 500 futures falling 5%, hitting limit-down and halting trading below this level until the next morning.

End of discussion.  By 11:55pm, it was already abundantly clear that Trump was the overwhelming favorite to win the election.

One, you don't get to say "end of discussion".   Two, it was NOT "abundantly clear" that Trump was going to win.  At that point, not one of the swing states were called, and a couple were within a few fractions of percentage points.  The market reaction to Trumps WIN, when Pennsylvania was called, was UP, and significant UP.   

I'm not so rude and arrogant as to say "end of discussion", but unless and until you account for the facts that don't neatly fit your anti-Trump, anti anything more right than Ted Kennedy point, it's awful hard to have a productive conversation.   

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #250 on: January 26, 2017, 02:52:49 PM »
Well, let's get out of Tangentville and back to Topictown, please.  :)  But if you and jsbru can't somehow manage to discuss things civilly, then as I already warned someone else in the thread, you both will be shown the door.  At this point, I'm not really interested or inclined to sift back through posts and see "who started it."  It ends now, one way or the other.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13774
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Women's March
« Reply #251 on: January 26, 2017, 02:53:10 PM »
Exactly.  I've had it with as many women as would have me, because it's fun and it feels good.  Some people do it because they want to create little monsters.  At it's base level, it feels awesome, so why should anybody pass judgment on how many times someone's done it and with how many people?  Do we pass judgment on the number of people we've gone to dinner with?  Or shared a beer with?  Or gone to the carnival with?

Excellent post, but I have to ask:  if so, why pass judgment on someone who puts it out there and let's the OTHER person, married or not, make the decision?   Short of ACTUAL p**** grabbing - which we're not talking about, we're talking about WORDS now, and speculation - why is there judgment about whether someone is willing to compromise their marriage for that "good feeling"?  If anything, there's an empowerment there, the thought that a woman can decide for herself independent of artificial constraints like a government piece of paper.   To the extent she is faithful (and i believe her to be) my wife isn't faithful to me BECAUSE WE'RE MARRIED, she's faithful to me because early in our relationship we pledged to be monogamous.   I can be (and I know people who are, though it isn't me) completely in love, completely happily married, and not at all faithful.   So why judge him on that artificial standard, but not those women (or vice versa)?   

(And no, "higher standard" doesn't apply, because Kennedy had more women than you, me, and Trump combined. We - and that includes Jackie - didn't hold him to any standard but his own.)

I'm not judging random married people who are unfaithful. That's between them and their own conscience. Also, I suppose it depends on your definition of unfaithful. Is a threesome that your gf sets up for the two of you considered cheating? Some say yes. If so, then someone needs to judge the fuck out of me.

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 959
Re: Women's March
« Reply #252 on: January 26, 2017, 02:55:02 PM »
They were moving more in that direction than people thought, but unless and until either Pennsylvania or Michigan fell - and Michigan didn't until what, two days later? - it was still Hillary's election to lose.  The analysis was such that she basically needed ONE state of the four or so swing states to lock up the election as of midnight.

I was following the live odds update on the NY Times website, which changed the odds real-time as the vote came in and based on what counties it was coming in from.

It was clear by something like 9:00pm central time that Trump was probably going to be favored to win.  Networks are overly, overly conservative when officially calling a state.  So the fact that PA wasn't called until after midnight, or that Michigan wasn't officially called until two days later, doesn't negate the fact that Trump basically had a 95% chance of winning about an hour or two after results started coming in from the Midwest.

The Trump victory was the highly unexpected event.  Markets had no reason to change if it looked like Hillary was going to win after all.  Most election prediction sites had Hillary at between a 75% and a 98% chance of winning on election day, and they were clustered toward the 98% end of things.  So if markets were going to tank due to the possibility of that occurrence, that information would have already been mostly factored into the stock price by then.  The thing is, the stock market was doing just fine when everyone thought Hillary was a surefire winner before the Comey letter.  The only reason for them to drastically change direction was for Trump to pull out an unexpected victory.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 959
Re: Women's March
« Reply #253 on: January 26, 2017, 02:57:59 PM »
Well, let's get out of Tangentville and back to Topictown, please.  :)  But if you and jsbru can't somehow manage to discuss things civilly, then as I already warned someone else in the thread, you both will be shown the door.  At this point, I'm not really interested or inclined to sift back through posts and see "who started it."  It ends now, one way or the other.

Ok, sorry.  I had started typing my previous post before I saw this.  So I'm done now.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #254 on: January 26, 2017, 03:01:04 PM »
The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.
I believe you've said in the past that consumer confidence in this case crashed in large part because of the democrat themed policies Obama brought along, as opposed to nice, predictable republican policies. Even when Trump was the biggest wildcard ever conceivable it wasn't enough to blow things up because he's essentially still a free market, capitalist republican. So is it your assertion that the bubble continues floating along for another 8, 16, 24 years had Obama not been elected, only to burst whenever a democrat finally gets in? Frankly, your case for this suggests a pretty gnarly indictment of our economic system and I'd say the problem isn't with with Obama at all, but the system not stable enough to withstand the cyclical nature of our elected government.

I don't know that the bubble just sits there; but the rate of change would have been manageable, and wouldn't have chilled investment in ALL markets, not just the housing one.   It wasn't necessarily "Democrat" policies, versus "free market capitalist republican" policies.  After all, we had Clinton following Bush, and while it wasn't seamless, it was as smooth as can be expected.

What it is specifically is the changing of the underlying assumptions on the investments.   When I buy $50 million in property that is contaminated with 100 parts per million of TCE, I price my acquisition on purchase price, what it costs to address the environmental issue, and what I can get in return after.   If it makes sense to clean to the bare minimum, say 50 ppm, and put a factory there, I do it.  If it makes more sense to clean to higher standards, say 10 ppm, (more expensive) but I get to put more lucrative uses on it (more return) I do it.    We always run the risk of changing standards.  Changing standards ten years from now, after I've cleaned it, and after the sale is done is often grandfathered in.  There's little risk.    But if I have a return based on 24 months, or even 12 months, and I'm costed in to 50 ppm, and all of a sudden tomorrow I have to go to 10 or even 5 ppm FOR THE SAME RETURN, I'm fucked.   If I have a president coming in, with "Change you can believe in" and purposefully and specifically targeting a President who is virtually a pariah to anyone other than a GOP party member, it becomes impossible to do the math.  So the reaction is, DON"T.  Wait until we see what happens.  Of course, when that guy gets in and there is no more certainty as before, you continue to sit on your capital and slowly start to parse it out in ever-increasing bits.   

It was a perfect storm of sorts.   You had the pendulum swinging farther and faster than usual.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #255 on: January 26, 2017, 03:02:35 PM »
Exactly.  I've had it with as many women as would have me, because it's fun and it feels good.  Some people do it because they want to create little monsters.  At it's base level, it feels awesome, so why should anybody pass judgment on how many times someone's done it and with how many people?  Do we pass judgment on the number of people we've gone to dinner with?  Or shared a beer with?  Or gone to the carnival with?

Excellent post, but I have to ask:  if so, why pass judgment on someone who puts it out there and let's the OTHER person, married or not, make the decision?   Short of ACTUAL p**** grabbing - which we're not talking about, we're talking about WORDS now, and speculation - why is there judgment about whether someone is willing to compromise their marriage for that "good feeling"?  If anything, there's an empowerment there, the thought that a woman can decide for herself independent of artificial constraints like a government piece of paper.   To the extent she is faithful (and i believe her to be) my wife isn't faithful to me BECAUSE WE'RE MARRIED, she's faithful to me because early in our relationship we pledged to be monogamous.   I can be (and I know people who are, though it isn't me) completely in love, completely happily married, and not at all faithful.   So why judge him on that artificial standard, but not those women (or vice versa)?   

(And no, "higher standard" doesn't apply, because Kennedy had more women than you, me, and Trump combined. We - and that includes Jackie - didn't hold him to any standard but his own.)

I'm not judging random married people who are unfaithful. That's between them and their own conscience. Also, I suppose it depends on your definition of unfaithful. Is a threesome that your gf sets up for the two of you considered cheating? Some say yes. If so, then someone needs to judge the fuck out of me.

So... you need to write a book.  :)   

I think this all started when someone criticized Trump for "hitting on a married woman" and implying HE was wrong for doing so. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #256 on: January 26, 2017, 03:05:24 PM »
They were moving more in that direction than people thought, but unless and until either Pennsylvania or Michigan fell - and Michigan didn't until what, two days later? - it was still Hillary's election to lose.  The analysis was such that she basically needed ONE state of the four or so swing states to lock up the election as of midnight.

I was following the live odds update on the NY Times website, which changed the odds real-time as the vote came in and based on what counties it was coming in from.

It was clear by something like 9:00pm central time that Trump was probably going to be favored to win.  Networks are overly, overly conservative when officially calling a state.  So the fact that PA wasn't called until after midnight, or that Michigan wasn't officially called until two days later, doesn't negate the fact that Trump basically had a 95% chance of winning about an hour or two after results started coming in from the Midwest.

The Trump victory was the highly unexpected event.  Markets had no reason to change if it looked like Hillary was going to win after all.  Most election prediction sites had Hillary at between a 75% and a 98% chance of winning on election day, and they were clustered toward the 98% end of things.  So if markets were going to tank due to the possibility of that occurrence, that information would have already been mostly factored into the stock price by then.  The thing is, the stock market was doing just fine when everyone thought Hillary was a surefire winner before the Comey letter.  The only reason for them to drastically change direction was for Trump to pull out an unexpected victory.

There's a reasonable, accepted explanation for what happened that supports my argument (it involves "irrational actors") but we've been asked to stand down.   I stand by my position. 

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #257 on: January 26, 2017, 03:07:23 PM »
You don't necessarily need to "stand down" on the subject.  I actually think it is a fascinating discussion.  I just don't think it belongs in this thread.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17869
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #258 on: January 26, 2017, 03:08:39 PM »
I tried to spark it in the Trump 100 days thread, I'm interested as well.  I figured that's a better spot.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #259 on: January 26, 2017, 03:09:49 PM »
Can we go there?

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #260 on: January 26, 2017, 03:10:43 PM »
Just to make sure we are clear here, I don't want this.

Apologies - when I said "you" I meant in general.  Not YOU.  Sometimes it is hard to remember to do that when in these discussions and I was rushing.  Sorry.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17869
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #261 on: January 26, 2017, 03:12:17 PM »
Just to make sure we are clear here, I don't want this.

Apologies - when I said "you" I meant in general.  Not YOU.  Sometimes it is hard to remember to do that when in these discussions and I was rushing.  Sorry.

It's cool, I just muddy my own water sometimes when I talk theoretically and my own personal views.  I didn't think you meant me, just wanted to be clear  :)

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20398
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Women's March
« Reply #262 on: January 26, 2017, 03:16:18 PM »
Replying to the economic subject in the 100 days thread.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #263 on: January 27, 2017, 09:26:20 AM »
Back on topic:  I saw Madonna's speech last night.  I had only previously heard descriptions of it.  All I can say is, wow, did she ever do a disservice to a cause that, from my understanding, was supposed to be about unity.  Now I understand the backlash she and others are getting, and I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been even more severe.  On the flip side, I really appreciate Cindi Lauper's comments on the subject.  She has such a much more mature approach that you can't help but want to listen to her, even if you disagree with what she is saying. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27493
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #264 on: January 27, 2017, 09:32:16 AM »
Back on topic:  I saw Madonna's speech last night.  I had only previously heard descriptions of it.  All I can say is, wow, did she ever do a disservice to a cause that, from my understanding, was supposed to be about unity.  Now I understand the backlash she and others are getting, and I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been even more severe.  On the flip side, I really appreciate Cindi Lauper's comments on the subject.  She has such a much more mature approach that you can't help but want to listen to her, even if you disagree with what she is saying.

Imagine if someone had said they thought about blowing up the White House eight years ago.  The backlash would have been massive.  And justifiably so.

Personally, I thought Ashley's Judd speech was much worse. I know she was reading something someone else wrote, but that was downright embarrassing.  She came off like a raving lunatic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #265 on: January 27, 2017, 09:39:28 AM »
I haven't seen/heard hers.  Will check it out.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 4745
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #266 on: January 27, 2017, 09:43:44 AM »
Oh yea, the Ashley Judd speech was definitely worse.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3034
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #267 on: January 27, 2017, 09:56:59 AM »
I really liked America Ferrera's speech. I didn't get to watch a whole lot of the other ones because I was in the streets lol
http://www.upworthy.com/america-ferreras-speech-at-the-womens-march-sends-a-powerful-message-against-hate

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 959
Re: Women's March
« Reply #268 on: January 27, 2017, 11:54:05 AM »
Is the Tea Party responsible for everything Ted Nugent says?

I understand holding parties or political movements responsible for what their elected officials say, but I don't want to have to answer for every speech by a celebrity just looking for attention.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 959
Re: Women's March
« Reply #269 on: January 27, 2017, 11:57:26 AM »
Honestly, a number of things Nugent has said are far worse than Madonna:

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/14/nra-board-member-ted-nugent-calls-assassination-president-obama.html

Also, this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266444-ted-nugent-hang-obama-and-clinton

Furthermore, Nugent is a little bit more than just a celebrity.  He's on the board of the NRA, which is incredibly politically active organization that gives a ton of financial and campaign support to Republicans.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #270 on: January 27, 2017, 12:17:37 PM »
Is the Tea Party responsible for everything Ted Nugent says?

Irrelevant.  Nobody said anyone other than Madonna (or anyone who then endorses what she said) is responsible for what Madonna said.  That does nothing to assuage the observation that, due to what she said, Madonna is a horrible spokeswoman.  If somebody wants to make the corresponding observation with respect to Nugent, so be it.  But that is off topic.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 959
Re: Women's March
« Reply #271 on: January 27, 2017, 12:22:56 PM »
I was responding partially to KevShmev's comment:

Quote
Imagine if someone had said they thought about blowing up the White House eight years ago.  The backlash would have been massive.  And justifiably so.

Nugent has said plenty of comparable stuff, and there was only temporary, limited outrage.  He was never forced to resign from the NRA board, and there was no massive backlash.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #272 on: January 27, 2017, 01:24:54 PM »
Honestly, a number of things Nugent has said are far worse than Madonna:

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/14/nra-board-member-ted-nugent-calls-assassination-president-obama.html

Also, this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266444-ted-nugent-hang-obama-and-clinton

Furthermore, Nugent is a little bit more than just a celebrity.  He's on the board of the NRA, which is incredibly politically active organization that gives a ton of financial and campaign support to Republicans.

Weren't you the one that dismissed a page and a half of legitimate, cogent arguments regarding Clinton and Trump with a "That's an 'I know you are but what am I'? argument"?   

Yeah, that.  If Clinton isn't a suitable counter argument to Trump vis-à-vis sexual assault, then Ted Nugent isn't a suitable counter argument to Madonna for being a misguided celebrity looking to revive a career that lost it's relevance a decade ago, and is fading fast.

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 959
Re: Women's March
« Reply #273 on: January 27, 2017, 01:30:40 PM »
Yeah, that.  If Clinton isn't a suitable counter argument to Trump vis-à-vis sexual assault, then Ted Nugent isn't a suitable counter argument to Madonna for being a misguided celebrity looking to revive a career that lost it's relevance a decade ago, and is fading fast.

Like I said above, I was not trying to defend Madonna.  I was just responding to Kev's argument that "if the other side did this, it would be a major issue."  The other side did it, and people pretty much yawned.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6118
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Women's March
« Reply #274 on: January 27, 2017, 01:33:20 PM »
I was just responding to Kev's argument that "if the other side did this, it would be a major issue."  The other side did it, and people pretty much yawned.

There is definitely some hypocrisy here, but let's not compare the celebrity, and the media's coverage of, Ted Nugent's to Madge's.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 481
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #275 on: January 27, 2017, 04:49:40 PM »
In case we needed more evidence that women's rights is a worthy cause  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decrimiinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

edit: Yes, USA TODAY's headline is sensationalist clickbait garbage but the actual story is still very disturbing to me.

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2870
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #276 on: January 27, 2017, 05:18:53 PM »
Yeah, I've hated the headlines for that story. Just tell it like it is, it's still bad.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8596
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Women's March
« Reply #277 on: January 27, 2017, 11:02:12 PM »
I just want to make it clear that I am absolutely chilled by the precedent this could set BUT....please hear me out and just cool your jets and listen to my story with a "Spock" ear for a moment.

I *DO GET* why sometimes lawmakers would love to put this type of law into practice.   

I am a complete chicken s**t.    Always have been.   I hate violence, and I have never owned, or even held a gun.   Even in school I NEVER ONCE got in a fight.   I ran.   I was "the coward of the county".     I was the boy that boys who were picked on by bullies picked on to make themselves feel better about themselves. 

I've never struck a single human being in anger IN MY ENTIRE LIFE....until one day. 

A few of you know that my wife is bipolar.    One night, I was exhausted, and my wife was in rage mode.  I was at my wits end, and my father was on his death bed.   He had been dying of Parkinsons for 18 years, and we were very near the end.    It was at that moment, in the middle of a extremely emotionally fragile moment, that my wife (in a moment of blind rage) said some very insulting things about my dying father.       So for the first time in my entire life.....with her back to me....I took a huge wind up, and I slapped her in the back of the head as hard as I possibly could.      Then I ran downstairs crying my eyes out.   I couldn't believe I had done such a thing.   

Her boys were downstairs.   They tried to comfort me.   They knew that I wasn't like their father (who hit their mom....a lot)....so one of them ran upstairs because he already knew what came next.      But it was too late.    Mom was already on the phone.     You see.....when you live in a "zero tolerance" state...the police have absolutely no say in the matter.   Someone is going to jail.    The boys didn't want me to go to jail, because they knew this was not the same situation as when their dad hit their mom.      But I distinctly remember when my middle step son said, "Ben.....I'm really sorry.   I tried to stop her.   I understand exactly why you did what you did....but you're going to have to put your shoes on now."

Even when the officer showed up and I explained the entire situation.    He said, "Mr. Straley....I'm really sorry, and I understand exactly why you did what you did....but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to put your hands behind your back."

So the guy who never hit a single human being in his entire life spent the night in jail the first time that he ever did...at all...for anything.   

My point is, in zero tolerance states, these stories are not unheard of.   And I think police are often sick of catching people like me in their dragnet.   It seems like no one can find a way to make any sort of BALANCED law in these cases.    If you guys read the article, you'll see that what they are *TRYING* to do (albeit probably very badly) is stop cases like mine from bogging down their system so that they can TRY to go harder on repeat offenders.   People who are honestly having *consistent* problems can be weeded out instead of getting buried in a sea of "one off" issues. 

Am I making any sense???
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #278 on: January 27, 2017, 11:15:00 PM »
Personally, I thought Ashley's Judd speech was much worse. I know she was reading something someone else wrote, but that was downright embarrassing.  She came off like a raving lunatic.

Wow.  Yeah, credibility gone.  Most of the women I know would be proud to consider her an embarrassment to womanhood.  Sad.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2017, 11:38:25 PM by bosk1 »
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5513
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #279 on: January 28, 2017, 09:57:59 AM »
Sorry, bosk, but your post just read like a Trump tweet.  :rollin

(Not in content. Just in cadence)