I also am dubious of GOP replacement for Obamacare. It's a Republican plan already there's nothing that can do less for people besides this. The next lower rung of health is nothing.
I also am dubious of GOP replacement for Obamacare. It's a Republican plan already there's nothing that can do less for people besides this. The next lower rung of health is nothing.
It was written originally by the frickin' Heritage Foundation and a state-wide implementation of it took place in Mass. when the 2012 Republican Nominee was the Governor of that State. They opposed it because they wanted to cripple Obama's Presidency. It worked to a great extent.
By the way, what in the holy hell is THIS all about??
Furthermore (and I admit I'm dying to get this one out) for everyone who likes to harp about "SJWs" and "safe spaces", here is an ACTUAL piece of legislation in Arizona relating to the issue. But (surprise, surprise) it isn't being introduced by a liberal to ban hate speech. No, no. It is being introduced by a Republican to (wait for it) ban social justice events at Arizona schools. In the manner of this subject, the defense rests:
A. A university... shall not include in its program of instruction any courses, classes, events or activities that do any of the following:
1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
2. Promote division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class of people.
3. Are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group.
4. Advocate solidarity or isolation based on ethnicity, race, religion, gender or social class instead of the treatment of students as individuals.
5. Violate state or federal civil rights laws.
6. Negatively target specific nationalities or countries.
The closest example of targeting SJW stuff is subsection 2, which I'm not even sure how to interpret. Forbidding the promotion of social justice sounds silly even from an anti-SJW perspective, so I'm not sure that's what it's really supposed to mean. And for what it's worth, "social justice" is so vague that anyone could plausibly claim to not be promoting it. They could claim to instead be promoting "equality" or "justice" or whatever, and escape the restriction entirely.
More importantly, it explicitly says a lot of SJW-related topics are NOT forbidden:
1. Courses, classes, events or activities for Native American students that are required to comply with federal law.
2. The grouping of students according to academic performance, including capability in the English language, that may result in a disparate impact by ethnicity.
3. Courses, classes, events or activities that include the accurate history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students, unless the course, class, event or activity violates subsection A of this section.
4. Courses, classes, events or activities that include the discussion of controversial aspects of history acutely.
D. This section does not restrict or prohibit the instruction of the holocaust, any other instance of genocide, or the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race or class.
Which means anyone attempting to implement the law in an anti-SJW way could be easily stopped by the list of exceptions down at the bottom.
A. A university... shall not include in its program of instruction any courses, classes, events or activities that do any of the following:
1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
2. Promote division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class of people.
3. Are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group.
4. Advocate solidarity or isolation based on ethnicity, race, religion, gender or social class instead of the treatment of students as individuals.
5. Violate state or federal civil rights laws.
6. Negatively target specific nationalities or countries.
The closest example of targeting SJW stuff is subsection 2, which I'm not even sure how to interpret. Forbidding the promotion of social justice sounds silly even from an anti-SJW perspective, so I'm not sure that's what it's really supposed to mean. And for what it's worth, "social justice" is so vague that anyone could plausibly claim to not be promoting it. They could claim to instead be promoting "equality" or "justice" or whatever, and escape the restriction entirely.
More importantly, it explicitly says a lot of SJW-related topics are NOT forbidden:
1. Courses, classes, events or activities for Native American students that are required to comply with federal law.
2. The grouping of students according to academic performance, including capability in the English language, that may result in a disparate impact by ethnicity.
3. Courses, classes, events or activities that include the accurate history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students, unless the course, class, event or activity violates subsection A of this section.
4. Courses, classes, events or activities that include the discussion of controversial aspects of history acutely.
D. This section does not restrict or prohibit the instruction of the holocaust, any other instance of genocide, or the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race or class.
Which means anyone attempting to implement the law in an anti-SJW way could be easily stopped by the list of exceptions down at the bottom.
I would argue that sections 2, 3 and 4 are aimed directly at groups like Black Lives Matter. African-Americans can't advocate solidarity based on their race?? Say goodbye to the entire Civil Rights movement if that never happens.
Of course the wording seems silly, because the premise of a bill like this needing to exist at all is preposterous. This seems like a proposed law written by Republican staffers who are very tuned into the politics of, let's say someone like Milo Yiannopoulos. As I've said many times before, I didn't even have a clue what a "social justice warrior" was until the Siege of Dragonspear controversy. The idea that phrasing like that would find it's way into an Arizona lawmaker's bill without being placed their specifically to cater to this type of anti-PC hysteria seems unlikely to me. You don't present a bill like this one without having a specific target in mind to use as a bludgeon in a culture war debate.
More importantly, we are constantly hearing how it's going to be the left who comes forth with a law banning what people can and can't say and what type of groups or organizations they can be involved with. What we see here is that when it comes to making ACTUAL legislation, that, it can at least be argued, would ACTUALLY restrict those kind of rights, it's coming from the exact opposite side of the political spectrum.
You present good solid counter-points, but I think there is more than enough here to come to my initial conclusion as well.
I have heard all about the supposed 4chan explanation. I'm not ruling it out. I'm also not going to just automatically believe some random user on 4chan (unquestionably one of the great cesspools of civilization) claiming credit for what happened here. Maybe, maybe not. The golden shower story is PROBABLY fake. Buzzfeed never claimed it was true. They never claimed anything in the report was true. The story was the report itself being in existence. And CNN sure as hell didn't even come close to even what Buzzfeed did. Nothing in these documents has been proven or unproven. It's raw intelligence. Neither CNN nor Buzzfeed claims otherwise. The story here is that the media, FBI and intelligence services were sitting on the information while basically sabotaging Hillary Clinton's campaign in the final weeks over absolutely nothing.
I have heard all about the supposed 4chan explanation. I'm not ruling it out. I'm also not going to just automatically believe some random user on 4chan (unquestionably one of the great cesspools of civilization) claiming credit for what happened here. Maybe, maybe not. The golden shower story is PROBABLY fake. Buzzfeed never claimed it was true. They never claimed anything in the report was true. The story was the report itself being in existence. And CNN sure as hell didn't even come close to even what Buzzfeed did. Nothing in these documents has been proven or unproven. It's raw intelligence. Neither CNN nor Buzzfeed claims otherwise. The story here is that the media, FBI and intelligence services were sitting on the information while basically sabotaging Hillary Clinton's campaign in the final weeks over absolutely nothing.
Comey and lawmakers had a classified briefing today that apparently left Democrats really really mad.
Something about Comey not notifying Wasserman-Shultz about the hack when she was less situated less than a mile away from Comey's office. And while not stated conjecture that Comey didn't lift a finger to investigate links waiting to be uncovered between the Kremlin and Trump campaign people.
Don't you think that if the CIA and FBI knew these allegations had some merit of truth they would not announce them publicly, they like secrecy and all that. After all, James Comey would never ever comment on on-going investigations. What's known and glossed over is that the British agent had been credible in the past.
I have heard all about the supposed 4chan explanation. I'm not ruling it out. I'm also not going to just automatically believe some random user on 4chan (unquestionably one of the great cesspools of civilization) claiming credit for what happened here. Maybe, maybe not. The golden shower story is PROBABLY fake. Buzzfeed never claimed it was true. They never claimed anything in the report was true. The story was the report itself being in existence. And CNN sure as hell didn't even come close to even what Buzzfeed did. Nothing in these documents has been proven or unproven. It's raw intelligence. Neither CNN nor Buzzfeed claims otherwise. The story here is that the media, FBI and intelligence services were sitting on the information while basically sabotaging Hillary Clinton's campaign in the final weeks over absolutely nothing.
Comey and lawmakers had a classified briefing today that apparently left Democrats really really mad.
Something about Comey not notifying Wasserman-Shultz about the hack when she was less situated less than a mile away from Comey's office. And while not stated conjecture that Comey didn't lift a finger to investigate links waiting to be uncovered between the Kremlin and Trump campaign people.
I don't believe 4chan was the origin at all because the document is linked to a former MI-6 operative who has gone into hiding after the leak by buzzfeed.
Comey swung the election to Trump. There is no way (in my mind) that story couldn't have tipped less than 100,000 voters in the rust-belt states that swung the outcome. What he did was bad in July when he cleared her and then held a press conference to offer his opinion on her behavior after deciding NOT to prosecute her (no one has yet told me what her crime would have even hypothetically been). It's not the job of law enforcement to offer their opinion on a situation when they find no wrongdoing. He then buckled under the pressure Republicans were putting on him, and to the pressure of rogue, pro-Trump, anti-Hillary elements in his New York office, and basically tanked the entire campaign. It's about as close to a coup as we've ever seen in this country.
Now we are finding out that he had information on Trump that was AT LEAST as relevant for public consumption as hyping up a bunch of BS about duplicates of already investigated e-mails, and they completely sat on it. Not only that, they knew about the Russian hacks and weren't even inclined to so much as lift a finger about it at the time.
We have no idea about 4chan or the MI-6 operative yet. It's a complete coin-flip at this point if any of that stuff turns out to be true. But as I've been pointing out (to much criticism), this is the world Trump has created, and he's gonna have to lay in his own filth whether the allegations are true or not. Tough luck.
We are now also finding out today that after the Obama Administration expelled the 30-odd Russian diplomats, Trump's National Security Director Michael Flynn was having back-alley conversations with them almost immediately thereafter. I suppose they're free to do whatever they want with those diplomats on January 20th, but as of RIGHT NOW Barack Obama is still President for another week, and any attempts to subvert his foreign policy are a violation of the Logan Act. Not that anything will ever be done about it.
Fox "News" is propoganda from the GOP / Koch brothers. It is mostly opinion pieces with guys like Bill O'Reilly on for 50 minutes out of every hour to tell you how to think about whatever agenda they are pushing.
You could say CNN is slanted towards corporate interests. Their bar of journalism is way higher though. And way more, to coin a phrase, "fair and balanced".
They regularly feature Republicans and Democrats offering positions while Faux News will only advocate Republican positions and demonize Democrats. Much more biased commentary and interpretation on Fox News.
Fox "News" is propoganda from the GOP / Koch brothers. It is mostly opinion pieces with guys like Bill O'Reilly on for 50 minutes out of every hour to tell you how to think about whatever agenda they are pushing.
You could say CNN is slanted towards corporate interests. Their bar of journalism is way higher though. And way more, to coin a phrase, "fair and balanced".
They regularly feature Republicans and Democrats offering positions while Faux News will only advocate Republican positions and demonize Democrats. Much more biased commentary and interpretation on Fox News.
ALL News outlets are biased and they are run by the same TRILLIONAIRES that own other media (print, websites etc.) If the majority of you here think that one news agency is better than the other, then I have nothing more to say . I am completely and utterly FLABBERGASTED .
Absolutely some are better than others. Particularly "news" outlets like Breitbart. Fox News is better but not by much.
Sorry to flabbergast you, it must come as a shock if your echo chamber is Fox News that they are way over the top biased. Stories on CNN are not dominated by opinion pieces where one guy tells you how to think. Often they have panels where multiple viewpoints are laid out. And the stories there are usually on multiple legitimate outlets.
Absolutely some are better than others. Particularly "news" outlets like Breitbart. Fox News is better but not by much.
Sorry to flabbergast you, it must come as a shock if your echo chamber is Fox News that they are way over the top biased. Stories on CNN are not dominated by opinion pieces where one guy tells you how to think. Often they have panels where multiple viewpoints are laid out. And the stories there are usually on multiple legitimate outlets.
If you are trying to poke at me with your post, I will remind you that I have no dog in this fight. I enjoy posting opposite points of view out so that this thread doesn't get permanently over run by one way convos.
I'm not even American but I love how people complain about a guy and even wish harm to him because of an Ideology. Weren't the Vatican's crusades the same thing? Maybe the salem witch trials?
I will say this, If anyone here wants to talk to someone in private and they can't afford the medical care they need, I have helped hundreds of people with Anxiety and Depression. I have put together some tools that I have used first hand to combat these crippling Dis-Ease.
I have never accepted a dime, my payment is the well being of everyone. The only thing I ask for is that you help someone else you know once you are feeling better with the same tools.
I will put my email address here if anyone asks for it and if the Mods allow it.
I feel that people are too sensitive. Millennials especially. Let's face it: they've been raised by a society that has done nothing nothing but fill their heads with lies. They tell them how special they are, give them trophies just for showing up and ensure them always that, no matter what, they're always a winner. So naturally, when these kids hit the real world and find that they are nothing but walking fleshbags, that equality is a social construct, and that reality doesn't care about people's feelings, they lash out in defense of their delusions. They run for safe spaces - they construct a reality more befitting their own skewed values, and what's more, they petulantly demand that others live in that reality, too. That's the problem facing the west today.
The above video is clearly comedy, but on a serious note, I find the idea that millennials are somehow simultaneously lazier, more pampered and entitled than previous generations to be a complete load of nonsense. If ANY generation exemplified this attitude, it was the baby-boomers, who grew up with EVERYTHING thanks to the government programs implemented after the Second World War, who simultaneously pulled the ladder up after them when they reached the top. Clearly defining any entire generation is ridiculous on it's face, but if we are going to deal with this subject on a meta-level, the idea that millennials are a more self-absorbed and entitled group of citizens than the baby-boom generation is simply not the case. But, in the spirit of dueling videos on this subject, here's a true master taking the later to task:
If you are trying to poke at me with your post, I will remind you that I have no dog in this fight. I enjoy posting opposite points of view out so that this thread doesn't get permanently over run by one way convos.
I'm not even American but I love how people complain about a guy and even wish harm to him because of an Ideology. Weren't the Vatican's crusades the same thing? Maybe the salem witch trials?
I will say this, If anyone here wants to talk to someone in private and they can't afford the medical care they need, I have helped hundreds of people with Anxiety and Depression. I have put together some tools that I have used first hand to combat these crippling Dis-Ease.
I have never accepted a dime, my payment is the well being of everyone. The only thing I ask for is that you help someone else you know once you are feeling better with the same tools.
I will put my email address here if anyone asks for it and if the Mods allow it.
Apologies these are trying times. It sounds like you do good work. Nobody here has advocated harm as far as I know. I am dismayed at how easily people do threaten others especially online. I am sad that a bully, a person who regularly threatens and intimidates others, is going to be our president.
The outrage on the right today over Meryl Streep's comments at the Golden Globes is beyond revealing. She was calling out Trump for mocking a disbabled reporter during the campaign (which he absolutely did), and apparently this is an example of how "out of touch" liberals are.
They're out of touch (or at least, the wealthy, Hollywood "elite" are) because they're completely blind to their own hypocrisy - i.e.: while Streep condemns someone just for making asinine comments, she applauds a pedophile and endorses a war-mongerer.
Aside from that, any sort of "protest" that comes out of Hollywood usually rings hollow, because they're often guilty of the very thing that they're protesting. Case in point:
"Meryl Streep's Golden Globes Speech Belied An Inconvenient Truth About Hollywood
When beloved actress Meryl Streep used her lifetime achievement award at the Golden Globes Sunday as an opportunity to denounce the president-elect, her fans ― along with critics of Donald Trump ― predictably went wild.
Streep was praised for her candor and bravery. The Academy Award winner left fellow A-listers with tears streaming down their faces as she described how her heart “broke” when Trump mocked Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times reporter with arthrogryposis, at a campaign event in 2015.
The president-elect denied that he’d mocked Kovaleski, and dismissed Streep as a “Hillary flunky.” His supporters claimed the speech epitomized everything that’s wrong with the liberal elite. But they weren’t the only ones with criticism: Many members of the disability community pointed out that Streep’s comments stand in stark contrast to the ways in which people with disabilities are shut out of awards shows and the entertainment industry as a whole. Outside of Streep’s reference to Kovaleski, there was barely a mention of anyone with a physical disability during Sunday’s show.
Hollywood is willing to touch on the issue of disability without actually inviting any members of the community to partake in the conversation, according to New York Times best-selling author and disability activist Kody Keplinger.
“I couldn’t help rolling my eyes,” Keplinger told The Huffington Post. She’s a co-founder of Disability in KidLit, an online resource regarding the depiction of disability in children’s and young adult literature. “The applause in the room felt almost self-congratulatory.”
"Can Hollywood really pat itself on the back when disabled actors are still so rarely cast -- even to play people like themselves?" Kody Keplinger, author and disability activist Nearly 1 person in 5 in America has a disability, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But Hollywood hasn’t made much room for this demographic. In 2015, only 2.4 percent of notable characters in the top-grossing 100 movies had disabilities.
What’s most disheartening, Keplinger notes, is that when people with disabilities are depicted on the big screen, they tend to be played by actors who are able-bodied in real life.
“’We would never do this,’ I’m sure many were thinking. ‘We would never mock someone with a disability,’” Keplinger said. “But how many of the actors in that room have been paid millions of dollars to play someone with a physical disability? There is a difference between playing a part and mocking someone, absolutely, but can Hollywood really pat itself on the back when disabled actors are still so rarely cast ― even to play people like themselves?”
In 2015, Eddie Redmayne won an Academy Award for best actor for his portrayal of famed physicist Stephen Hawking in James Marsh’s “The Theory of Everything.” It took months of “physical training” for Redmayne to nail the gestures of a person with Lou Gehrig’s disease.
Last year, “Me Before You,” Thea Sharrock’s heartbreaking romantic film about a stud who becomes paralyzed and falls in love with his caretaker, featured actor Sam Claflin in the lead role. Claflin doesn’t use a wheelchair.
Nor is this a recent phenomenon. One of Dustin Hoffman’s career-defining roles was as a man with autism in Barry Levinson’s 1988 hit “Rain Man.”
The list goes on. And the issue is just as prevalent in television. Ninety-five percent of characters with disabilities on TV are portrayed by able-bodied actors.
And yes, representation matters.
“Imagine what it would feel like to be a woman and for the only women you ever saw in films to be played by men. Imagine what it would feel like to be a member of an ethnic minority and for the only portrayals of your race you ever saw in films to be given by white people,” Scott Jordan Harris wrote in an opinion piece for Slate in 2015. “That’s what it’s like being a disabled person at the movies.”
Streep concluded her Golden Globes speech with a quote from her late friend, the actress Carrie Fisher: “Take your broken heart and make it into art.”
Now if only Hollywood would just extend that invitation to people with disabilities."
They made no claims to the veracity of everything that is in the report.
Which is precisely the problem - the entire POINT of being a journalist is to FIND OUT the truth, not to print a bunch of random crap and then tell your readers to figure out the truth on their own (and I say this as someone who actually worked in journalism at one time). It would be like someone at McDonald's handing you a hamburger bun and then telling you to make your own burger.
Since the election, the WashPost, the WSJ, and the NY Times (just to name a few) have all been busted for printing grossly inaccurate or completely fictitious stories, ranging from Trump being given debate questions in advance to Russians hacking voting machines and electrical grids. Ironically, this all comes in the wake of the MSM's declaration of "war on fake news" - talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
As someone else said, the MSM is rapidly becoming (if they haven't already) "The Boy Who Cried News" - by the time if/when they actually print something that's true, they won't be taken seriously until it's too late.
All Meryl Steep did at the Golden Globes was call out Trump (without mentioning him) for mocking a disabled reporter. But I think it's well understood that in America, celebrities are not allowed to have opinions on such things. That's pretty much, as far as I can tell, reserved for people with more conservative viewpoints. I'm told their opinions matter a great deal. Hell, our electoral system even agrees with that assessment.
I'm not gonna sit here and defend Meryl Streep for defending Roman Polanski. I will take issue with a reason as to WHY disabled actors aren't used in film roles for disabled people. And that's probably because AMERICA itself wouldn't want it on their movie screens. They'd find it uncomfortable (just go back and look at what happened to Todd Browning's "Freaks" for the prime example). Maybe, just maybe, Hollywood isn't the elitist cesspool much of middle-America seems to think it is. Maybe it's your mirror.
They made no claims to the veracity of everything that is in the report.
Which is precisely the problem - the entire POINT of being a journalist is to FIND OUT the truth, not to print a bunch of random crap and then tell your readers to figure out the truth on their own (and I say this as someone who actually worked in journalism at one time). It would be like someone at McDonald's handing you a hamburger bun and then telling you to make your own burger.
Since the election, the WashPost, the WSJ, and the NY Times (just to name a few) have all been busted for printing grossly inaccurate or completely fictitious stories, ranging from Trump being given debate questions in advance to Russians hacking voting machines and electrical grids. Ironically, this all comes in the wake of the MSM's declaration of "war on fake news" - talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
As someone else said, the MSM is rapidly becoming (if they haven't already) "The Boy Who Cried News" - by the time if/when they actually print something that's true, they won't be taken seriously until it's too late.
CNN reported real news. They said the President and Trump were given a two page synopsis about an unverified report about things the Russians have on Trump. This is fact. This happened.
BuzzFeed published the entire report not the synopsis. The report has not been proven yet and is questionable.
Aside from that, any sort of "protest" that comes out of Hollywood usually rings hollow, because they're often guilty of the very thing that they're protesting.
Criticising the elected president of the United States for publically mocking a disabled reporter, and working in an industry that does not typically hire disabled people, are not even remotely close to the same thing. They're not even on the same planet. They are two entirely different things, and saying "disabled people!" does not make them comparable.
If Meryl Streep is wrong to criticise Trump, it is because it is wrong for an actress to criticise the conduct of an elected politician. If someone can't argue that point, then no amount of bringing up of Roman Polanski, or the hiring practices of the industry she works in, makes what she said wrong.
One of the unpleasant things of modern media, politics and the internet is that far too much time is spent trying to prove someone is hypocritical, and not nearly enough addressing the actual substance of whatever they said or did.
I'm not gonna sit here and defend Meryl Streep for defending Roman Polanski. I will take issue with a reason as to WHY disabled actors aren't used in film roles for disabled people. And that's probably because AMERICA itself wouldn't want it on their movie screens. They'd find it uncomfortable (just go back and look at what happened to Todd Browning's "Freaks" for the prime example). Maybe, just maybe, Hollywood isn't the elitist cesspool much of middle-America seems to think it is. Maybe it's your mirror.
Speaking as someone who's worked in the industry, I would suspect that while the "uncomfortable" thing isn't wrong, it isn't the prime factor. I'd say it's a mix of:
1) I haven't seen statistics to prove this, but it seems intuitive that there are relatively few trained actors who have obvious disabilities, for the chicken-or-the-egg problem that they can only be cast as such, and there are few roles (beyond extra work) for them. So finding one that can deliver the performance needed for a major role would be difficult (not necessarily impossible, but you can't just put out a local casting call and expect them to come pouring in). Some diseases would honestly make it difficult for the hypothetical actor to do their job, as well.
2) Mainstream movies that touch on illnesses tend to glamourise them for the screen. Of course with exceptions, but for many roles somebody who has the actual symptoms of the illness will actually be "too real".
3) Pretending to have a disease is considered more within the legitimate purview of "acting" than pretending to be another race (another culture is common still, however). Many people have just never actually considered the topic the way it was presented in the above criticism. Speaking personally, my wife has multiple sclerosis and before reading the above post it would never have occurred to me (or her) that somebody with MS should play her in a hypothetical movie.
4) What you said. Dealing with people with certain types of illnesses, on a personal level, puts many people off, and that's going to subconsciously influence a lot of things.
They made no claims to the veracity of everything that is in the report.
Which is precisely the problem - the entire POINT of being a journalist is to FIND OUT the truth, not to print a bunch of random crap and then tell your readers to figure out the truth on their own (and I say this as someone who actually worked in journalism at one time). It would be like someone at McDonald's handing you a hamburger bun and then telling you to make your own burger.
Since the election, the WashPost, the WSJ, and the NY Times (just to name a few) have all been busted for printing grossly inaccurate or completely fictitious stories, ranging from Trump being given debate questions in advance to Russians hacking voting machines and electrical grids. Ironically, this all comes in the wake of the MSM's declaration of "war on fake news" - talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
As someone else said, the MSM is rapidly becoming (if they haven't already) "The Boy Who Cried News" - by the time if/when they actually print something that's true, they won't be taken seriously until it's too late.
CNN reported real news. They said the President and Trump were given a two page synopsis about an unverified report about things the Russians have on Trump. This is fact. This happened.
BuzzFeed published the entire report not the synopsis. The report has not been proven yet and is questionable.
The BBC actually had the report (which originated in Britain) in October. But because they could not find any corroborating evidence decided not to publish.
But the truth of the report is irrelevant. Trump saw to that. This is why in the past most professional politicians did not resort to outright lies. They knew that it was a weapon that could easily be turned against them. There was, in effect, and unspoken "Geneva Convention". Now the genie is out of the bottle and Trump is going to have to contend with that.
In regards to Rosie O'Donnell, let's remember that, in a Presidential Primary debate, Donald Trump basically called her (personally, with no provocation) a pig on national television. Not only did he call her a pig, he used her as a specific example, AMONG ALL WOMEN, of someone who would deserve being called a pig. It was Trump, like all bullies, picking an easy target, because alot of people don't like Rosie O'Donnell already, and many don't find her conventionally attractive. So when asked about calling women pigs, he resorted to the easiest place he could go which was "only Rosie O'Donnell. This crowd of wonderful people then CHEERED that comment, if that tells you anything. I believe that night (and I remember it vividly) she tweeted out "wow, try imagine explaining that one to your kids". So Rosie O'Donnell can be as irrational as she'd like about this. Also, Mark Dice, the man in the video, is at least as much of a lunatic as Rosie O'Donnell is. I'm not even going to go into the man because I know you are simply trying to throw in diametrically opposed ideas to liven things up. But suffice to say that Mark Dice is basically a 4th-rate Alex Jones. Which I see that you mentioned. Which is good.
If Meryl Streep is wrong to criticise Trump, it is because it is wrong for an actress to criticise the conduct of an elected politician. If someone can't argue that point, then no amount of bringing up of Roman Polanski, or the hiring practices of the industry she works in, makes what she said wrong.
One of the unpleasant things of modern media, politics and the internet is that far too much time is spent trying to prove someone is hypocritical, and not nearly enough addressing the actual substance of whatever they said or did.
Her only real problem with Trump is that he has an "R" next to his name - if not for that, he could get away with (practically literally) murder without her batting an eyelid.
People watching at home have the exact same right to comment on such an obvious double standard as she does to partake in it.
I don't know anything about Meryl Streep, but she could be a horrible person and still be right to point out Trump was wrong to mock a disabled person. If a rapist says that murder is wrong... well, yes, it is. It's true no matter who says it.
The mocking was only a few seconds and the hand movements might be generic mocking rather than specific to that reporter's condition, but that wasn't Trump's defense. He said he never mocked the reporter at all. He did.
Regarding the low representation of disabled people in Hollywood: the basic problem here is that while a non-disabled person can act in a wheelchair, a wheelchair-bound person can't play a character who walks around a lot. Some disabilities will make certain roles impossible.
The Theory of Everything is a great example. Yes, the actor was not disabled, and had to undergo special training to replicate the effect. But the movie was about Hawking's transition over the course of the disease, which meant the actor had to walk around and ride a bicycle and dance normally for the first section of the film. If you wanted a disabled person (specifically, somebody with a condition like Hawking's) to play that role, you'd have to restrict it to the post-transition period, which would cut out the most dramatic part of the film: Hawking's gradual loss of movement.
Acting in general requires physical and mental versatility. It's not that Hollywood discriminates against disabled people (though as far as I know, they do); it's that acting is inherently a physically demanding job.
If Meryl Streep is wrong to criticise Trump, it is because it is wrong for an actress to criticise the conduct of an elected politician. If someone can't argue that point, then no amount of bringing up of Roman Polanski, or the hiring practices of the industry she works in, makes what she said wrong.
One of the unpleasant things of modern media, politics and the internet is that far too much time is spent trying to prove someone is hypocritical, and not nearly enough addressing the actual substance of whatever they said or did.
Her only real problem with Trump is that he has an "R" next to his name - if not for that, he could get away with (practically literally) murder without her batting an eyelid.
People watching at home have the exact same right to comment on such an obvious double standard as she does to partake in it.
Which I would then counter by those people claiming to hate it when celebrities speak up, but are absolutely over the moon when someone like Jon Voight or Kid Rock comes out as supporting conservative causes or candidates. In something somewhat related, it's well-known Bruce Springsteen opposes Trump completely. So Trump, who is finding it hard to get nearly anyone of any artistic significance to participate in his inauguration, has booked a Springsteen cover band. First of all, that band must have never ACTUALLY listened to any of the words to the songs they cover. Secondly, if I was Springsteen I would immediately DEMAND this be followed:
“Anyone who plays copyrighted music in a public establishment is required to obtain advanced permission from the copyright owner, or their representative.” A PRO, sometimes referred to as Performing Rights Society (PRS), is a licensing agent for songwriters and their music publishing companies, and it coordinates royalties for the appropriate parties."
Last, it is WELL known how much Trump has always wanted to be an accepted part of celebrity culture. That almost no one is willing to cross the line and perform at his swearing in is likely gnawing at him more than any national security issue he has been briefed on. Trump, aside from everything else, is a fundamentally ridiculous person, and before this all started, almost no one would have disagreed with that assessment. Until he descended the escalator and called Mexicans rapists. Then all of a sudden a lot of people started to like the man. Oh, and that wouldn't have been the effective starting gun it was without him claiming for years that Barack Obama was an a illegitimate President. Now Republicans are aghast when liberals are now saying the same thing about him. Good luck with that argument.
I enjoy posting opposite points of view out so that this thread doesn't get permanently over run by one way convos.
There's actually been lots of diversity of viewpoints in this thread, especially since the election. But joining a discussion with people you disagree with is most definitely the best way of combating groupthink.
I have helped hundreds of people with Anxiety and Depression. I have put together some tools that I have used first hand to combat these crippling Dis-Ease.
I have never accepted a dime, my payment is the well being of everyone. The only thing I ask for is that you help someone else you know once you are feeling better with the same tools.
I will put my email address here if anyone asks for it and if the Mods allow it.
For safety's sake, I would recommend only posting your email address in personal messages, not out here in public. This is a friendly forum and I highly doubt anyone would use your address to harass you (we've never seen that before on this forum), but it doesn't hurt to be careful.
Comments
By the way, what in the holy hell is THIS all about??
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/commanding-general-of-dc-national-guard-to-be-removed-from-post/2017/01/13/725a0438-d99e-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?postshare=9301484331092848&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.a2950b1de3ef
Furthermore (and I admit I'm dying to get this one out) for everyone who likes to harp about "SJWs" and "safe spaces", here is an ACTUAL piece of legislation in Arizona relating to the issue. But (surprise, surprise) it isn't being introduced by a liberal to ban hate speech. No, no. It is being introduced by a Republican to (wait for it) ban social justice events at Arizona schools. In the manner of this subject, the defense rests:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/1R/bills/HB2120P.htm
More importantly, it explicitly says a lot of SJW-related topics are NOT forbidden: Which means anyone attempting to implement the law in an anti-SJW way could be easily stopped by the list of exceptions down at the bottom.
Of course the wording seems silly, because the premise of a bill like this needing to exist at all is preposterous. This seems like a proposed law written by Republican staffers who are very tuned into the politics of, let's say someone like Milo Yiannopoulos. As I've said many times before, I didn't even have a clue what a "social justice warrior" was until the Siege of Dragonspear controversy. The idea that phrasing like that would find it's way into an Arizona lawmaker's bill without being placed their specifically to cater to this type of anti-PC hysteria seems unlikely to me. You don't present a bill like this one without having a specific target in mind to use as a bludgeon in a culture war debate.
More importantly, we are constantly hearing how it's going to be the left who comes forth with a law banning what people can and can't say and what type of groups or organizations they can be involved with. What we see here is that when it comes to making ACTUAL legislation, that, it can at least be argued, would ACTUALLY restrict those kind of rights, it's coming from the exact opposite side of the political spectrum.
You present good solid counter-points, but I think there is more than enough here to come to my initial conclusion as well.
Something about Comey not notifying Wasserman-Shultz about the hack when she was less situated less than a mile away from Comey's office. And while not stated conjecture that Comey didn't lift a finger to investigate links waiting to be uncovered between the Kremlin and Trump campaign people.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/314259-wasserman-schultz-confronted-comey-about-russian-hacking
The document is linked to a former MI-6 operative who has gone into hiding after the leak by buzzfeed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38591382
Don't you think that if the CIA and FBI knew these allegations had some merit of truth they would not announce them publicly, they like secrecy and all that. After all, James Comey would never ever comment on on-going investigations. What's known and glossed over is that the British agent had been credible in the past.
Now we are finding out that he had information on Trump that was AT LEAST as relevant for public consumption as hyping up a bunch of BS about duplicates of already investigated e-mails, and they completely sat on it. Not only that, they knew about the Russian hacks and weren't even inclined to so much as lift a finger about it at the time.
We have no idea about 4chan or the MI-6 operative yet. It's a complete coin-flip at this point if any of that stuff turns out to be true. But as I've been pointing out (to much criticism), this is the world Trump has created, and he's gonna have to lay in his own filth whether the allegations are true or not. Tough luck.
We are now also finding out today that after the Obama Administration expelled the 30-odd Russian diplomats, Trump's National Security Director Michael Flynn was having back-alley conversations with them almost immediately thereafter. I suppose they're free to do whatever they want with those diplomats on January 20th, but as of RIGHT NOW Barack Obama is still President for another week, and any attempts to subvert his foreign policy are a violation of the Logan Act. Not that anything will ever be done about it.
You could say CNN is slanted towards corporate interests. Their bar of journalism is way higher though. And way more, to coin a phrase, "fair and balanced".
They regularly feature Republicans and Democrats offering positions while Faux News will only advocate Republican positions and demonize Democrats. Much more biased commentary and interpretation on Fox News.
Sorry to flabbergast you, it must come as a shock if your echo chamber is Fox News that they are way over the top biased. Stories on CNN are not dominated by opinion pieces where one guy tells you how to think. Often they have panels where multiple viewpoints are laid out. And the stories there are usually on multiple legitimate outlets.
I'm not even American but I love how people complain about a guy and even wish harm to him because of an Ideology. Weren't the Vatican's crusades the same thing? Maybe the salem witch trials?
I will say this, If anyone here wants to talk to someone in private and they can't afford the medical care they need, I have helped hundreds of people with Anxiety and Depression. I have put together some tools that I have used first hand to combat these crippling Dis-Ease.
I have never accepted a dime, my payment is the well being of everyone. The only thing I ask for is that you help someone else you know once you are feeling better with the same tools.
I will put my email address here if anyone asks for it and if the Mods allow it.
Aside from that, any sort of "protest" that comes out of Hollywood usually rings hollow, because they're often guilty of the very thing that they're protesting. Case in point:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/golden-globes/meryl-streeps-golden-globes-speech-belied-an-inconvenient-truth-about-hollywood/ar-BBy82RS
"Meryl Streep's Golden Globes Speech Belied An Inconvenient Truth About Hollywood
When beloved actress Meryl Streep used her lifetime achievement award at the Golden Globes Sunday as an opportunity to denounce the president-elect, her fans ― along with critics of Donald Trump ― predictably went wild.
Streep was praised for her candor and bravery. The Academy Award winner left fellow A-listers with tears streaming down their faces as she described how her heart “broke” when Trump mocked Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times reporter with arthrogryposis, at a campaign event in 2015.
The president-elect denied that he’d mocked Kovaleski, and dismissed Streep as a “Hillary flunky.” His supporters claimed the speech epitomized everything that’s wrong with the liberal elite. But they weren’t the only ones with criticism: Many members of the disability community pointed out that Streep’s comments stand in stark contrast to the ways in which people with disabilities are shut out of awards shows and the entertainment industry as a whole. Outside of Streep’s reference to Kovaleski, there was barely a mention of anyone with a physical disability during Sunday’s show.
Hollywood is willing to touch on the issue of disability without actually inviting any members of the community to partake in the conversation, according to New York Times best-selling author and disability activist Kody Keplinger.
“I couldn’t help rolling my eyes,” Keplinger told The Huffington Post. She’s a co-founder of Disability in KidLit, an online resource regarding the depiction of disability in children’s and young adult literature. “The applause in the room felt almost self-congratulatory.”
"Can Hollywood really pat itself on the back when disabled actors are still so rarely cast -- even to play people like themselves?" Kody Keplinger, author and disability activist
Nearly 1 person in 5 in America has a disability, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But Hollywood hasn’t made much room for this demographic. In 2015, only 2.4 percent of notable characters in the top-grossing 100 movies had disabilities.
What’s most disheartening, Keplinger notes, is that when people with disabilities are depicted on the big screen, they tend to be played by actors who are able-bodied in real life.
“’We would never do this,’ I’m sure many were thinking. ‘We would never mock someone with a disability,’” Keplinger said. “But how many of the actors in that room have been paid millions of dollars to play someone with a physical disability? There is a difference between playing a part and mocking someone, absolutely, but can Hollywood really pat itself on the back when disabled actors are still so rarely cast ― even to play people like themselves?”
In 2015, Eddie Redmayne won an Academy Award for best actor for his portrayal of famed physicist Stephen Hawking in James Marsh’s “The Theory of Everything.” It took months of “physical training” for Redmayne to nail the gestures of a person with Lou Gehrig’s disease.
Last year, “Me Before You,” Thea Sharrock’s heartbreaking romantic film about a stud who becomes paralyzed and falls in love with his caretaker, featured actor Sam Claflin in the lead role. Claflin doesn’t use a wheelchair.
Nor is this a recent phenomenon. One of Dustin Hoffman’s career-defining roles was as a man with autism in Barry Levinson’s 1988 hit “Rain Man.”
The list goes on. And the issue is just as prevalent in television. Ninety-five percent of characters with disabilities on TV are portrayed by able-bodied actors.
And yes, representation matters.
“Imagine what it would feel like to be a woman and for the only women you ever saw in films to be played by men. Imagine what it would feel like to be a member of an ethnic minority and for the only portrayals of your race you ever saw in films to be given by white people,” Scott Jordan Harris wrote in an opinion piece for Slate in 2015. “That’s what it’s like being a disabled person at the movies.”
Streep concluded her Golden Globes speech with a quote from her late friend, the actress Carrie Fisher: “Take your broken heart and make it into art.”
Now if only Hollywood would just extend that invitation to people with disabilities."
Since the election, the WashPost, the WSJ, and the NY Times (just to name a few) have all been busted for printing grossly inaccurate or completely fictitious stories, ranging from Trump being given debate questions in advance to Russians hacking voting machines and electrical grids. Ironically, this all comes in the wake of the MSM's declaration of "war on fake news" - talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
As someone else said, the MSM is rapidly becoming (if they haven't already) "The Boy Who Cried News" - by the time if/when they actually print something that's true, they won't be taken seriously until it's too late.
Is anyone else here an owner of the SoD Collectors Edition that can tell me if the January 16th delivery date is for REALZ for North America?
I'm not gonna sit here and defend Meryl Streep for defending Roman Polanski. I will take issue with a reason as to WHY disabled actors aren't used in film roles for disabled people. And that's probably because AMERICA itself wouldn't want it on their movie screens. They'd find it uncomfortable (just go back and look at what happened to Todd Browning's "Freaks" for the prime example). Maybe, just maybe, Hollywood isn't the elitist cesspool much of middle-America seems to think it is. Maybe it's your mirror.
BuzzFeed published the entire report not the synopsis. The report has not been proven yet and is questionable.
If Meryl Streep is wrong to criticise Trump, it is because it is wrong for an actress to criticise the conduct of an elected politician. If someone can't argue that point, then no amount of bringing up of Roman Polanski, or the hiring practices of the industry she works in, makes what she said wrong.
One of the unpleasant things of modern media, politics and the internet is that far too much time is spent trying to prove someone is hypocritical, and not nearly enough addressing the actual substance of whatever they said or did.
1) I haven't seen statistics to prove this, but it seems intuitive that there are relatively few trained actors who have obvious disabilities, for the chicken-or-the-egg problem that they can only be cast as such, and there are few roles (beyond extra work) for them. So finding one that can deliver the performance needed for a major role would be difficult (not necessarily impossible, but you can't just put out a local casting call and expect them to come pouring in). Some diseases would honestly make it difficult for the hypothetical actor to do their job, as well.
2) Mainstream movies that touch on illnesses tend to glamourise them for the screen. Of course with exceptions, but for many roles somebody who has the actual symptoms of the illness will actually be "too real".
3) Pretending to have a disease is considered more within the legitimate purview of "acting" than pretending to be another race (another culture is common still, however). Many people have just never actually considered the topic the way it was presented in the above criticism. Speaking personally, my wife has multiple sclerosis and before reading the above post it would never have occurred to me (or her) that somebody with MS should play her in a hypothetical movie.
4) What you said. Dealing with people with certain types of illnesses, on a personal level, puts many people off, and that's going to subconsciously influence a lot of things.
( I do not respect the video maker or his views )
But the truth of the report is irrelevant. Trump saw to that. This is why in the past most professional politicians did not resort to outright lies. They knew that it was a weapon that could easily be turned against them. There was, in effect, and unspoken "Geneva Convention". Now the genie is out of the bottle and Trump is going to have to contend with that.
People watching at home have the exact same right to comment on such an obvious double standard as she does to partake in it.
The mocking was only a few seconds and the hand movements might be generic mocking rather than specific to that reporter's condition, but that wasn't Trump's defense. He said he never mocked the reporter at all. He did.
Regarding the low representation of disabled people in Hollywood: the basic problem here is that while a non-disabled person can act in a wheelchair, a wheelchair-bound person can't play a character who walks around a lot. Some disabilities will make certain roles impossible.
The Theory of Everything is a great example. Yes, the actor was not disabled, and had to undergo special training to replicate the effect. But the movie was about Hawking's transition over the course of the disease, which meant the actor had to walk around and ride a bicycle and dance normally for the first section of the film. If you wanted a disabled person (specifically, somebody with a condition like Hawking's) to play that role, you'd have to restrict it to the post-transition period, which would cut out the most dramatic part of the film: Hawking's gradual loss of movement.
Acting in general requires physical and mental versatility. It's not that Hollywood discriminates against disabled people (though as far as I know, they do); it's that acting is inherently a physically demanding job.
“Anyone who plays copyrighted music in a public establishment is required to obtain advanced permission from the copyright owner, or their representative.” A PRO, sometimes referred to as Performing Rights Society (PRS), is a licensing agent for songwriters and their music publishing companies, and it coordinates royalties for the appropriate parties."
Last, it is WELL known how much Trump has always wanted to be an accepted part of celebrity culture. That almost no one is willing to cross the line and perform at his swearing in is likely gnawing at him more than any national security issue he has been briefed on. Trump, aside from everything else, is a fundamentally ridiculous person, and before this all started, almost no one would have disagreed with that assessment. Until he descended the escalator and called Mexicans rapists. Then all of a sudden a lot of people started to like the man. Oh, and that wouldn't have been the effective starting gun it was without him claiming for years that Barack Obama was an a illegitimate President. Now Republicans are aghast when liberals are now saying the same thing about him. Good luck with that argument.