The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
12-11-2018, 08:58 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
when your award so is so shitty and poorly rated:
it's probably hard to pat yourself on the back, at the same time claiming everyone is a winner...
Kevin Hart’s abrupt departure as Oscars host has left the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences scrambling to find someone to take the gig. As of now, the situation remains fluid as the group’s leadership explores options, including going host-less, individuals familiar with the situation told Variety.
The Academy was blindsided by Hart’s announced departure Thursday night, according to two insiders. The Board of Governors will convene on Tuesday night at a previously-scheduled meeting where the matter will inevitably be discussed.
“They’re freaking out,” said a top comedy agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity. There were no contingency plans in place by the Academy or broadcaster ABC, according to another insider. The show’s producers are back to square one.
The Academy was blindsided by Hart’s announced departure Thursday night, according to two insiders. The Board of Governors will convene on Tuesday night at a previously-scheduled meeting where the matter will inevitably be discussed.
“They’re freaking out,” said a top comedy agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity. There were no contingency plans in place by the Academy or broadcaster ABC, according to another insider. The show’s producers are back to square one.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2018, 12:19 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,030
Total Cats: 6,594
@Joe Perez 4:52
Unrelated, an excerpt from an opinion piece published by the Washington Post, written by Robby Mook,Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign manager:
On the Friday before the Democratic National Convention in July 2016, Russian agents released, through WikiLeaks, thousands of emails stolen from the DNC. The timing caused maximum harm at a critical moment in the Democratic contest. As campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, I appeared two days later on two Sunday political talk shows, ready for an avalanche of questions about the emails, which I got. But rather than focusing on the content of the documents, I thought it was important to discuss why they were released in the first place.
Full article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...82f_story.htmlSo, basically, it's more important to be upset about the source of documents which incriminated nominee Clinton than to pay attention to what the documents actually revealed about her activities.
Everybody clear on that? Always focus on the messenger and ignore the message.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2018, 01:16 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,030
Total Cats: 6,594
I don't know what AOC means in this context. Google is producing hundreds of different results.
Albanian Orthodox Church? American Oilseed Coalition? Army Ordnance Corps?
Albanian Orthodox Church? American Oilseed Coalition? Army Ordnance Corps?
Reply
0
0
12-11-2018, 03:11 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,030
Total Cats: 6,594
Conservative logic: "I should be given unlimited access to private platforms from which to say whatever I want. Not forcing these platforms to let me use them to publish my deliberately inflammatory rantings is censorship."
Actions have consequences. Basing your whole income stream off of media channels with known liberal biases, and then flooding them with extremely anti-liberal rhetoric, has a foreseeable outcome. No different than if a host for MSNBC were to start using their show to sing the praises of Emperor Trump and denounce the villainous and cowardly Clinton. They'd soon find themselves without a job.
Acting hurt about how this isn't far makes a person sound like whiny liberal.
Actions have consequences. Basing your whole income stream off of media channels with known liberal biases, and then flooding them with extremely anti-liberal rhetoric, has a foreseeable outcome. No different than if a host for MSNBC were to start using their show to sing the praises of Emperor Trump and denounce the villainous and cowardly Clinton. They'd soon find themselves without a job.
Acting hurt about how this isn't far makes a person sound like whiny liberal.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2018, 03:18 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
Conservative logic: "I should be given unlimited access to private platforms from which to say whatever I want. Not forcing these platforms to let me use them to publish my deliberately inflammatory rantings is censorship."
Actions have consequences. Basing your whole income stream off of media channels with known liberal biases, and then flooding them with extremely anti-liberal rhetoric, has a foreseeable outcome. No different than if a host for MSNBC were to start using their show to sing the praises of Emperor Trump and denounce the villainous and cowardly Clinton. They'd soon find themselves without a job.
Acting hurt about how this isn't far makes a person sound like whiny liberal.
Actions have consequences. Basing your whole income stream off of media channels with known liberal biases, and then flooding them with extremely anti-liberal rhetoric, has a foreseeable outcome. No different than if a host for MSNBC were to start using their show to sing the praises of Emperor Trump and denounce the villainous and cowardly Clinton. They'd soon find themselves without a job.
Acting hurt about how this isn't far makes a person sound like whiny liberal.
It isn't for lack of interest or available viewers, it's that you simply cannot compete with Google.
It seems to me to be more of a monopoly issue.
Reply
1
1
12-11-2018, 03:24 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,030
Total Cats: 6,594
What's the alternative? Use government regulations to prevent companies such as Google (which owns YouTube, etc) from being able to service more than a certain percentage of all Internet users?
Facebook, Instagram, Google, etc., didn't just arise as monopolies overnight. They weren't even the first in their respective fields, they just did it better than the competition. Should the law punish excellence?
Reply
0
0
12-11-2018, 03:31 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
but they did start morphing from a service provider to a super pac almost overnight. They also literally make up reason to de-platform people, and all work together to target specific political opponents.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2018, 03:46 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
the media is 100% run by jews, even the conservative media. prove me wrong.
so there really is no other alternative -- the last social media app that allowed blacklisted people to use the service got kicked off apple play and google store.
so there really is no other alternative -- the last social media app that allowed blacklisted people to use the service got kicked off apple play and google store.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2018, 03:55 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
when you think everyone should be paid the same, but actually have a bottom line:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...otes-to-strike
this is why you fire everyone at the first hint of unionizing...
I wonder how the staff would react if Slate agreed to fire 70% of the white privileged and hire based on race, ethnicity, LGBTQ, and no ability. (going to bet the staff is 80% white and straight)
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...otes-to-strike
Recently unionized writers and editors at Slate have reportedly voted almost unanimously to strike over concerns about the company's diversity policies and a rule mandating that union fees be optional for Slate employees.
Bloomberg News reports that Slate employees voted 52 to 1 in favor of a strike and have begun considering when workers will walk out. A spokesman for the union told Bloomberg that the rules mandating optional union fees at the left-leaning blog seemed to be a "betrayal" of the site's values.
“We just feel that it’s a total and absolute betrayal of Slate’s most fundamental values,” Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern told Bloomberg.
Bloomberg News reports that Slate employees voted 52 to 1 in favor of a strike and have begun considering when workers will walk out. A spokesman for the union told Bloomberg that the rules mandating optional union fees at the left-leaning blog seemed to be a "betrayal" of the site's values.
“We just feel that it’s a total and absolute betrayal of Slate’s most fundamental values,” Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern told Bloomberg.
this is why you fire everyone at the first hint of unionizing...
I wonder how the staff would react if Slate agreed to fire 70% of the white privileged and hire based on race, ethnicity, LGBTQ, and no ability. (going to bet the staff is 80% white and straight)
Reply
0
0
12-11-2018, 04:14 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,030
Total Cats: 6,594
Here's a dish I made recently using ground pork sausage:
More pork sausage:
Pork tenderloin:
BBQ pork:
Etc.
I also use electronics on the Sabbath day, and generally just ignore pretty much all of Abrahamic law aside from the parts that are also crimes in the US.
Reply
0
0
