JCauto

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Remember when Obama sat all of those Banksters down and let them know "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks"? That shakedown was a thing of beauty. The banksters saw nary a pitchfork and DNC coffers were bulging.

I'd agree with you there. Mind you, they at least attempted to and succeeded at passing some legislation to regulate the financial markets with Dodd-Frank. The Republicans made damn sure it had no teeth, then gleefully destroyed it as soon as they got into power, with the Banksters happily investing in their political campaigns as well. 

My biggest single issue with respect to the US political system is the need to get money out of it as this has resulted in the capture of democracy by corporate interests and oligarchs. Make individual contributions a maximum of $1,000, ban lobbyists from contact with the Congress and impose two-term limits for starters.

2 minutes ago, jackh said:

So McCabe is fired. Step #1 to drain the swamp. Many more steps to go. Memo released and more sure to fall. I'm just waiting for the indictments to start rolling out and get these commies behind bars. 

Trump called it many months ago and everyone called him wacko. Who's wacko now? Finally glad to see the Democrats getting exposed and their deep state govt agenda unraveling by the day. 

I said weeks ago, "watch and see what's coming. Tick Tock" The GOP by the end of this year will be full steam ahead with full control to MAGA. Then we need term limits and the wall. NO to DACA and YES to extreme immigration vetting, E-Verify, and no to any chain migration. It's coming folks sooner than later now. 

Trump is playing the Democrats like a fiddle and he will pervail.

 

Yes, because the "swamp" was referring to career civil servants doing their jobs, not to lobbyists and career politicians, right? So are Goldman Sachs and the other Billionaires who precipitated then profited on the Financial Crisis part of the swamp or part of the solution? I was under the impression that they were swampers, so why have they've just continued to gain control of the Treasury and other parts of the government that purportedly regulate them? You guys are so confusing. Can you define what the swamp is? Who are we supposed to drain?

Yes, Trump is fiddling, but more like Emperor Nero, whom he has more similarities to than any other leader of a country. I'll be happy to see the fall of this prevert (sic).

I know you Trumpeters are getting all excited about the latest attempt to obstruct the Mueller investigation, but afraid to have to tell you the following facts:

1. FBI and Justice Department officials are remarkably similar to other US citizens. They have political views, affiliations and beliefs, but are sworn to their jobs and as their jobs are within the legal system, they're particularly cognizant of the need to follow the law. Just because an FBI guy is a Democrat or Republican, and whether they like or dislike Trump are irrelevant.

2. Robert Mueller and James Comey were both lifelong Republicans although Comey now says he's unaffiliated. Both were appointed by and served under several Republican administrations. Rod Rosenstein began his career as a prosecutor on the Whitewater Investigation of Kenneth Starr. These guys are basically the OPPOSITE of biased against Republicans, they are far more likely to be biased against Democrats. But far far more likely than that is that they are what they are - lifelong civil servants in the law enforcement sector who rose to the top of their professions through diligence and hard work and who have not been at all involved in partisan politics. To smear these guys because you don't like what they're doing as per their professional requirements and responsibilities is reprehensible.

3. Devin Nunes has already embarrassed himself and had to apologize for his obvious attempts to derail the Mueller investigation. That they're trying to influence the ongoing investigation in such a partisan manner is astonishing given the potential of what it may find. You'll have to pardon me as I'm of the age who remembers the years of the Gipper and how the GOP used to be staunchly opposed to Communism and the expansionism of Russia. To observe them now collaborating with them and depending on them to fight the investigation is appalling and demonstrates how far the GOP has fallen in their attempts to please their rich donors. 

I will enjoy watching the dominoes fall and the GOP crash and burn in the Midterms, at which point they'll be properly consigned to the dustbin of history. I only hope that a more Right-Center party will emerge to take their place (the return of the Whigs?) while they head off to their cabins to arm themselves and stock up on canned goods.

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sigh. The reasons women hold fewer managerial positions is because they "take time out to breed", while men turn up every day to do the job. If women really want to rise to higher levels stop having children and do the job 100%, and not as an aside to being a "mother".

The idea that any person can take years out of a career to become an unpaid baby sitter and still be an influential manager is, IMO, barking.

Career women in Singapore stopped having children, to the extent that the government is concerned about it. 

Frankly, and IMO, if women want to be taken seriously, stop wittering on about "having it all", stop indulging in such stupidities as those fashion statements like huge shoulder pads, stop using sex to get ahead and start being serious about the job.

Nope. Women don't go as far in managerial positions because they defer to their husband's career. The National Post, BTW, is a conservative newspaper in case your concerned about "media bias".

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/children-dont-ruin-womens-careers-husbands-do-harvard-study-finds

But your finding that it's in fact the shoulder pads they wear that is the real cause of their career demise will no doubt revolutionize the field of gender studies. When does your paper come out?

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sigh.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/27478-is-it-ok-if-innocent-men-are-destroyed-for-sexual-misconduct

Emily Lindin, a columnist for Teen Vogue, is one such person. She went so far as to state that she had no problem with the fact that some innocent men may have to become casualties in the fight to prevent sexual misconduct.

Oh, so a columnist for Teen Vogue said it! QED! I know that's where SERIOUS people get their opinions.

Even from that steaming pile of <deleted>, they note that the rate of innocent people being accused of sexual assault/harassment is between 2-10%. That means the rate of guilty people being accused is 90-98%. But why worry about that? If one innocent man is convicted, then it's worth 49 women being assaulted/harassed! We must protect our right to be creeps and a-holes! 

What is it with modern society that we've somehow lost our numeracy, and all it takes to create "debate" is to find a few exceptions and put those forth to proudly shout "SEE! Here's one. You're wrong!" There are very few black/white situations in real life. Climate change is not in doubt among scientists, the vast majority of women don't consider innocent men being persecuted to be acceptable. Focusing on cranks who don't believe the science or want the innocent to suffer does nothing for the debate other than to demonstrate that there will always be some idiots out there. Why bother bringing their perspective into a serious discussion? 

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As one that actually worked for decades in a female dominated "profession" ( and previously in an almost entirely male "profession" ) that had a microscopic number of males as compared to females, and worked for almost all female managers, I can categorically state that any idea that a female dominated society would somehow be better is just barking. When it comes to horrid bosses, women can be just as nasty as any man. IMO the proportion of nasty, evil managers is equal when it comes to the genders.

Which is not to say that there weren't gems of managers among the dross.

Certainly that's true, but nobody is seriously talking about a "female dominated society". We're just talking about eliminating barriers that have resulted in such a disproportionate number of men in positions of power, and holding people to account for using their power to harass people below them. Why would anyone think that men would suddenly no longer be able to compete for jobs or have any power if there were a reasonable number of women at the same level as they? Are men that insecure? Do you think that the reason there are so microscopically few women in these positions because men are inherently superior to women in these fields such that there's a 90-10 M/F gender gap at management/ownership level?

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you don't understand that the witch hunt has gone far from the "powerful men who appear to have questionable morals in their dealings with people whom they are in a position of authority over" you need to wise up. When women openly say it's OK for innocent men to suffer if falsely accused it shows how OTT it has become.

When have women openly been saying that? I've never seen or heard it. We've seen what? A dozen people brought up for their behaviour,? This is some epidemic war on men? What a joke. 

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

someone who may well be dodgy

So, no need for any actual proof, then? Lets just get out the tar and feathers and have a "man hate party" because someone "may" have done something, which was never even tried in a court by the state for lack of any actual evidence.

Seems the only thing that protects us all- "innocent till proven guilty" is now just an inconvenient thing and can be disregarded with impunity.

Obviously the #metoo thing has released a lot of pent up incidents from the past and this has led to the identification of a number of clear sexual predators, and a lot of dubious behaviour by others. For all the gnashing of teeth by the "War on Men" crowd, can you name a single person who has been taken to the woodshed on relatively harmless grounds like you seem to believe is happening, has happened and will happen? Seems we have our first case, that of Aziz Ansari, and he seems to be both "winning" the battle of public opinion and so lines are being drawn that are reasonable. No, you shouldn't go public because you had a bad date. And that seems to be the consensus. So what exactly is the problem here? Should guys who used their positions of power to abuse others just be able to get away with it? Yes, society's mores are changing here, better learn to deal with it.

This has made Hollywood wary of working with people with questionable behaviour in the past, and ordinary people wary of admiring people who may be crossing that line. Naturally they're reducing their risk of being associated with it. I find Woody Allen's behaviour to be creepy, so I don't patronize his movies. That's not persecution. You don't see anything wrong with it so perhaps you continue to watch his movies. Also fine.

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

So you were wrong then about "men continue to completely dominate practically all affairs of humankind at all important levels. "

No. That remains true. I noted that we are moving into an era, not that we're in an era. Transitions take time. And I doubt that there will be anything near a 50/50 society any time soon. But there is no stopping the trend, nor any reason to seriously oppose it.

8 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

 

While there is some truth to what you are saying, especially when it comes to 14th century regions like the backwards, silly, surly, ignorant Sharia parts of the Middle East, this has gone way, way too far. There is no threshold of proof. The burden needs to be on the accusers, to come up with some proof of their allegations. Otherwise it is a witch hunt, combined with a potential payday. 

From what I can see, American society is doing well enough at parsing between what constitutes genuine sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape and what is flirting and genuine misunderstanding of when things go wrong. The case of Aziz Ansari is quite instructive; it's been fully through the media cycle and the overwhelming consensus is that this was no case of sexual coercion, harassment or otherwise, but the kind of stuff that happens on a bad date. He's not being crucified, quite the contrary, he's come off well whereas his accuser has not. On the other hand, do you seriously doubt that Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby were serial sexual predators?

Just because people are finally feeling safe to come out and name the people who took advantage of them when they were younger does not mean that they are opportunists looking for money. Fact is that this is not an easy thing to be the accuser for, you open yourself to all sorts of unpleasant scrutiny and it diminishes automatically everything you've done in your career in addition to reopening old wounds. Guys who do this NEVER do this just once, and I haven't seen many who have been accused that have only one accuser (although, somewhat ironically in the context of this point you might put Woody Allen in that category). Sure, these guys are rich and powerful, that's the point. But they're not going after EVERY rich and powerful guy, are they? That's because the percentage of sexual predators is actually pretty low I suspect. So to hell with them, they get what's coming.

I would only note that with respect to your previous post, as a professional male, I cannot think of a single situation in which it would be appropriate for me to put my hand on a female colleague's butt or thigh, or a male colleague's for that matter. And if I saw someone do that to my daughter, I would probably end up in a physical confrontation. But nobody is being called on the carpet for that anyway. They went well beyond it and did so repeatedly. Just because the environment has finally changed and the serial offenders are getting their just desserts is no reason to flee the country screaming about the "War on Men".

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

The Prime minster of Britain is female, the Empress of Germany/Europe is female, The US will almost certainly have a female president in the next election or the one after that. I am sure that Justin Trudeau is ashamed of his testicles, as is probably Macron.  Corporations do not switch leadership in the same manner as politics. But you can see the trend there as well.

Yes, we're finally moving into an era where there's less of an "old boy's club" although you're fully aware, I'm sure, that this is easily still the predominant state of affairs except in Scandinavia. I should think any sensible person would applaud this shift. Economically and politically you're tapping into a majority of the population who will have been under-utilized in comparison to their potential. And for those who are against this in principle, think of the other benefits - it will give more enlightened economies and countries a comparative advantage and reduce the strength and power of the old patriarchal and religious regimes such as those in the Middle East. 

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Stop making things up. I never said his career had been ruined. Seriously, don't do that. It's really offensive. Say what you want but you don't get to totally FABRICATE what other people say. 

You did say "It is creepy. But I don't know that careers should be necessarily ruined for being creepy." I presumed as we were talking about Woody Allen, that this is what you meant. Apologies if not, I was not trying to fabricate anything from what you wrote.

25 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The coolest thing to be these days is a victim. Being a fame whore 40 years ago is now redefined as being oppressed. A second harvest if you will.

And as y'all are such sticklers for accuracy, we're talking 20 years ago, not 40.

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It is creepy. But I don't know that careers should be necessarily ruined for being creepy.

Claiming Allen's career to have been "ruined" is hyperbolic to say the least. He's been able to make as many and any movie he pleases, play his clarinet in his club, live a luxury life in NYC. 

I am comfortable with the clearly established fact that people of exceptional ability and intelligence are also more prone to mental illness and strange proclivities. That there have been any number of geniuses or exceptional artists/politicians/athletes who were also despicable people should not be a surprise to anyone who chooses to remain informed. This tends to colour our admiration for that person and their achievements, it's true. But whose fault is that?

These people were gifted in some ways, but cursed in others, and chose to act in harmful ways to others who were not in control or consent. That's part of their record, and we're free to continue to admire or despise or do both as we believe. It's a pity, I quite like his earlier movies. But once he married his gf's young daughter, yeah, I didn't really feel like seeing his movies so much. One runs into this dilemma all the time, especially when one has sports teams one is attached to and they have flawed people who play for them. But to pretend they're not more than a bit creepy at the very least and that this somehow constitutes some terrible persecution of these powerful and rich dudes who certainly knew better is just bizarre to me. 

11 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Not creepy or illegal and they have been married 20 years, plenty here married to far younger Thai women, is that 'creepy'?

No, only if they were dating their Thai mothers, acted as a father figure for their adopted teenage kids, then eventually started sleeping with those same kids once they became adults.

13 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I will never say that there weren't some scaly creatures making movies back in the day. But let's be realistic. Hollywood evolved out of an endless supply of pretty people with few worldly skills other than a perfect body and a lovely face. Celebrities are the play things of the super rich. Money and fame were on the table and so were the lads and lasses who were prepared to do what ever it took to get on top. To look at it now through the lens of modern puritanism is complete folly.

 

Your closing paragraph is irrelevant to the OP and cliche anti-male hate mongering.

 

Sure, Hollywood is an amoral place where ambitious and attractive young men and women play the game. Does that make sexual predation okay because that's "just the way it is"? I don't think so. And to address the point made that these things were done 40-50 years ago when morals, attitudes and society were different - yes, I agree. Although as that poster noted, there were still clear lines that were crossed back then too. But sure, we shouldn't judge actions of long ago from the lens of our current (hopefully more enlightened) times. 

I fail to see why my paragraph is irrelevant or anti-male hate mongering. It's a clearly sarcastic note that despite the so-called "war on men", men continue to completely dominate practically all affairs of humankind at all important levels. This false persecution complex also drives much of the support for Donald Trump. Claiming that we're in the midst of some witchhunt because people are now being cautious about powerful men who appear to have questionable morals in their dealings with people whom they are in a position of authority over is patently absurd.

11 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I watched the Golden Globes, the whole thing was celebration of the conquest of women over predatory men, particularly white men.  Most of the women seemed absolutely delirious with the war on men. They were careful to point out however, the few men they could identity as being particularly well trained. Ironically a new record for the amount of cleavage on display was also set that night. It was a perfect night for the beatification of Saint Oprah, the woman who almost single-handedly created the mass appeal of political correctness.

Never has the moral high horse soared at such heights. It is amazing to me that finding success in Hollywood transforms a person in to a paragon of virtue and correct living. Whereas I always assumed the reality was a bunch of fragile, drug addicted  self-entitled narcissistic time bombs, living far above reality in a cloud of their own creation.

Yes, how terrible! Those poor predatory men! Unable to grope, coerce or otherwise choose to take advantage of those less powerful than they. How awful for them. Yes, more casualties in the horrific war on men.

And look at the victorious harpies! Now they dominate corporate boards, power and shares, they are overwhelming majorities in the world's parliaments and serve as most heads of government. And what have men done to deserve this complete loss of their power other than completely despoil the planet, bring endless war and misery for the majority of the people?

The state of the world these days, I tell ya.

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's creepy but that's not what he's being held to account for.

True, but it makes one very nervous about the allegations that he was messing with an even younger one. I would completely understand backing away from a guy whose behaviour is already clearly borderline when there are other allegations out there, that's just managing risk. The people backing away from him are not outside his house with pitchforks, they're choosing not to associate with someone who may well be dodgy now that those who previously have operated with impunity have lost it. So nobody is persecuting him, he's enjoying the fruits of his actions. Don't act creepy, and people won't treat you like some creep.

34 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

This is turning out, predictably, to be a McCarthy style witch hunt where anyone who could possibly be guilty is branded.

Because, you know, divorcing your wife and marrying her adopted daughter who's 35 years younger than you and who was a teenager when you met is totally not creepy.

I think I can connect the dots...the guy needed a lot of money so he could go buy the extremely expensive watches he loves to collect. He also doesn't mind loaning the watches out to the boss.

I thought Blue Shirt showed some decent standup instincts, had a strategy of leading with his jab and looking for a big shot with his right. If the fight had gone on for another minute, shirtless fat dude was going down! 

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'd say we're in about the third inning with respect to uncovering high profile harrasers/abusers. I wouldn't be publishing the final box score just yet.

I'd agree with you there. There's no evidence that I've seen that being a sex pest is related to one's political leanings one way or another.

8 hours ago, hdkane said:

First, you shouldn't equate being a republican with trump...trump is much more of a dem...Second, if you dislike repub, then this is the worst thing that could have happened...if moore had won, he would have been a constant reminder to everyone about voting a party line...with this win, the dems have a chance to really screw things up...just remember, it was dem policies and attitudes, not repub ones, that propelled trump to the whitehouse...trump was elected as a reaction to dems race baiting/selling out the country/needless provocation and the repubs apathy/reluctance in addressing the real issues of government...it is a genuine defeat for trump, but you are simply wrong if you think repubs or conservatives really care about trump...just watch and see if anyone challenges trump in the upcoming election...there will be tons of candidates...dems will only trot out sanders, who is a joke, albeit an entertaining one.

If you've been paying any attention at all, you'd understand that Trump has no political positions whatsoever, other than what's expedient at the time. He'll flip and flop on anything so long as it appears like he's "winning" and getting as much attention as possible. I love though how the Right are already manoeuvering to pretend that Donald is actually a Democrat regardless of which Party put him in their leadership race and selected and supported him to be President.

I agree with your assessment that Moore winning would have been even better for the Democrats in the long-term. But this race has further tarnished the Republican brand and continued the trend of (finally) mobilizing the many who oppose Trump and the destruction of the State he is attempting. Your characterization of the Democrats as having sold out the country gave me a good chuckle, so thanks for that. You may be aware of a high level investigation for collusion with a hostile foreign power...Trump is a dead man walking, and the Republicans have chosen to chain themselves to the Trump Zombie army. Won't end well.

9 hours ago, hansnl said:

Of course the 50 year old sex conduct accusations area boon for the democrats.

Easily made, unprovable, and highly effective.

AND an almost unlimited supply of pious hypocrites who have at the very least left themselves badly compromised and more than likely have regularly denigrated and abused women for many years without any penalty.

One side has demanded that those who have been accused demonstrate their innocence or resign their positions regardless of political cost. The other has said that political expediency is more important than any moral or ethical issues. Tell us again about the moral fibre of the Right.

21 minutes ago, tweedledee2 said:

Laws restricting gun ownership only restrict legal ownership. This tragedy of senseless deaths was not due to inadequate gun control laws. Because information from his military service court-martial had not been entered into the national database, he was able to purchase the weapon he used.   If that information had been available, this assault-style rifle would not have been used. But having criminal intent he would have resorted to other methods.   So due to a few mentally deranged individuals actions, there is now a need for increased restrictions on gun sales, when the current firearms laws should have prevented it.  The government actually needs to enforce the current regulations and close the loopholes, which led to this recent incident. 

I disagree with your premise. One reason why we don't have as many armed robberies or shootings by criminals in Canada is the general lack of access to guns by everyone. By putting more restrictions in place and enforcing them, it makes it a hassle for people to get their guns legally, so only the keenest shooters bother. Therefore there are far far far less guns around. Less guns to be stolen in break-ins. Less guns to be picked up when someone is angry in the spur of the moment. Less guns to find their way to gun shows where rules are easily avoided. Less guns lying around or even stored properly but where clever children can find them and accidentally shoot their siblings or selves.

In addition, by having these rules in place, you put a hazard and a cost on each step that a criminal has to take to get his gun. Each step is now illegal, so there's a risk of the criminal getting caught. The cost is much higher so criminals who do things like B&Es don't tend to be armed - too expensive, too high a cost if caught, and most homeowners don't have guns either so no need to keep them for protection or getaway. When you flood a country with guns, it becomes much cheaper and easier for criminals to get them. This is so obvious that it shouldn't have to be stated. And yet...