The 2017 General Salma Hayek discussion thread...Part 3!!!

[Woobie]

And if you weren't around back then, you might have no idea what I'm talking about.

History is often most poorly remembered by those who lived it. The cold light of facts (which have been given to you in abundance) can shine on a subject previously only reflected upon with inaccurate biases and unreliable reporting. Just look at how things are reported now. Things haven't changed.

Still, keep throwing out the "what do you know? you weren't there!" line like some REMF would recount his time in SF over in Vietnam or Iraq. I'm sure someone will be gullible enough to believe you.

 

[Alpo]

History is often most poorly remembered by those who lived it.

Wrong. Naive.

 

[jamil]

Yes. We agree. Now they call themselves republicans.

Jeff Sessions was always a Republican. He was a member of the young republicans in college. As far as I can see he’s not a racist, at least he’s no more racist than the average American. He’s no more racist than you.

 

[Woobie]

Wrong. Naive.

You say that, but your silly position on the '64 CRA certainly supports my statement.

 

[Alpo]

Jeff Sessions was always a Republican. He was a member of the young republicans in college. As far as I can see he’s not a racist, at least he’s no more racist than the average American. He’s no more racist than you.

That is something you cannot be sure about. At least I don't have a letter from Coretta Scott King in my permanent file.

 

[Woobie]

Jeff Sessions was always a Republican. He was a member of the young republicans in college. As far as I can see he’s not a racist, at least he’s no more racist than the average American. He’s no more racist than you.

Thats not how this works. The Alpo political flow chart tells us how we should view this.


What did you do?-----> Doesn't matter

Does Alpo approve? Yes----->You're a Democrat No----> You're a Republican

Are you a Republican? Yes----> You're a racist. No---->You're a great person, go grab some boobies. It's fine

 

[BugI02]

Circling dogfight

 

[Kutnupe14]

Lots of revisionist history in here. Here, let's dispense of the racism associated with whatever parties and look at other issues.
So a few questions:
-Democrats used to rally behind states rights. Republicans have adopted that idea.
-Democrats used to rally around isolationism. Republicans have adopted that idea.
-By definition Democrats were the more Conservative party. Today the Republicans have adopted that idea.
-Democrats used to dominate Southern politics. Today the Republicans dominate Southern politics. Does one believe that he values of both the North and South have changed completely?
-The Democrats used to be anti-economic intervention. Republicans have adopted that idea.

Even without consideration of the racism component, how one doesn't consider the current Republican Party as the spiritual successor the former policies of Democrat party, I don't know

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump blocks AT&T-Time Warner merger:

A DOJ official told reporters Monday that the agency is concerned the combined company will charge competitors hefty fees to distribute Time Warner content, providing an unfair advantage to AT&T-owned DirecTV. Such an arrangement would have a negative impact on American TV viewers, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the litigation.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/trump-lawsuit-att-time-warner-merger-250956

Govt should stay out of business right? Seems like this is a personal decision by the president, who has repeatedly made known his dislike for CNN.

 

[Woobie]

Trump blocks AT&T-Time Warner merger:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/trump-lawsuit-att-time-warner-merger-250956

Govt should stay out of business right? Seems like this is a personal decision by the president, who has repeatedly made known his dislike for CNN.

You're making quite a few assumptions. I won't necessarily disbelieve you, but I'm not going to put on my tin foil hat unless we can show some personal intervention by Trump, direct or indirect. Need some facts. The article cites a lot of "sources" and "unnamed officials" "close to the deal", which frankly could mean anything or nothing. This might be a case of classic Trump pettiness, or Politico trying to make much Trump ado about nothing.

It seems fairly consistent with our anti-trust laws to me, but IANAL, I haven't studied the history of anti-trust rulings, and I slept in my own bed last night.

But to your free market point: yes, I'm always against government intervention in private enterprise.

 

[Woobie]

Lots of revisionist history in here. Here, let's dispense of the racism associated with whatever parties and look at other issues.
So a few questions:
-Democrats used to rally behind states rights. Republicans have adopted that idea.
-Democrats used to rally around isolationism. Republicans have adopted that idea.
-By definition Democrats were the more Conservative party. Today the Republicans have adopted that idea.
-Democrats used to dominate Southern politics. Today the Republicans dominate Southern politics. Does one believe that he values of both the North and South have changed completely?
-The Democrats used to be anti-economic intervention. Republicans have adopted that idea.

Even without consideration of the racism component, how one doesn't consider the current Republican Party as the spiritual successor the former policies of Democrat party, I don't know

Spiritual successor? I don't think it is nearly that cut and dried. One could point out all sorts of similar or dissimilar traits between current and former Democrats and Republicans, Nazis, Communists, Monarchists, Anarchists. Not sure any of them would amount to spiritual succession. I think you have to arrive at that view with a certain bias.

Republicans do have traits which Democrats once possessed, to be sure. But culture, technology, people, and all sorts of things have changed along with those parties.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You're making quite a few assumptions. I won't necessarily disbelieve you, but I'm not going to put on my tin foil hat unless we can show some personal intervention by Trump, direct or indirect. Need some facts. The article cites a lot of "sources" and "unnamed officials" "close to the deal", which frankly could mean anything or nothing. This might be a case of classic Trump pettiness, or Politico trying to make much Trump ado about nothing.

It seems fairly consistent with our anti-trust laws to me, but IANAL, I haven't studied the history of anti-trust rulings, and I slept in my own bed last night.

But to your free market point: yes, I'm always against government intervention in private enterprise.

While a candidate, Trump said that he was not going to let this merger take place. Listening to the lawyers from AT&T, the last time the govt tried a vertical merger case was during the Carter Administration (govt lost). The last time the court has blocked a vertical merger was during the Nixon administration. So since about 50 years mergers have been implemented without much issue. AT&T says they don't know if this opposition is due to Trump's grudge against CNN, but they say their deals isn't much different that previous ones. My personal opinion, is that the president will be a victim of his poorly considered comments concerning CNN, which some will say are indicative of bias, and the deal goes through.

 

[Woobie]

While a candidate, Trump said that he was not going to let this merger take place. Listening to the lawyers from AT&T, the last time the govt tried a vertical merger case was during the Carter Administration (govt lost). The last time the court has blocked a vertical merger was during the Nixon administration. So since about 50 years mergers have been implemented without much issue. AT&T says they don't know if this opposition is due to Trump's grudge against CNN, but they say their deals isn't much different that previous ones. My personal opinion, is that the president will be a victim of his poorly considered comments concerning CNN, which some will say are indicative of bias, and the deal goes through.

I saw the lawyers' comments, and more or less ignored them. Their agenda isn't necessarily to paint an accurate picture of the facts. I just want to see an impartial source comment on vertical mergers.

As to Trump's comments, he talks way too much for his own good. Eventually he will destroy himself. He probably already has, but the pieces haven't fallen into place yet.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Another one bites the dust...

WaPo: Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them — with nudity, groping and lewd calls:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...81fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.0f6c886bf85c

This one doesn't surprise me... he always set off my "nothing but a creep" detector.

 

[BugI02]

Lots of revisionist history in here. Here, let's dispense of the racism associated with whatever parties and look at other issues.
So a few questions:
-Democrats used to rally behind states rights. Republicans have adopted that idea.
-Democrats used to rally around isolationism. Republicans have adopted that idea.
-By definition Democrats were the more Conservative party. Today the Republicans have adopted that idea.
-Democrats used to dominate Southern politics. Today the Republicans dominate Southern politics. Does one believe that he values of both the North and South have changed completely?
-The Democrats used to be anti-economic intervention. Republicans have adopted that idea.

Even without consideration of the racism component, how one doesn't consider the current Republican Party as the spiritual successor the former policies of Democrat party, I don't know

By those evidentiary "standards", that makes the current Democratic party the "spiritual successor" of the Bolsheviks

 

[femurphy77]

Too much Alpo. Not enough Salma...

Mmmm, nom, nom, nom!!

 

[BugI02]

Trump blocks AT&T-Time Warner merger:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/trump-lawsuit-att-time-warner-merger-250956

Govt should stay out of business right? Seems like this is a personal decision by the president, who has repeatedly made known his dislike for CNN.

Yep. WaPo, you should approve

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/solyndra-scandal-timeline/

Greenlighting Solyndra - The Washington Post

 

[BugI02]

While a candidate, Trump said that he was not going to let this merger take place. Listening to the lawyers from AT&T, the last time the govt tried a vertical merger case was during the Carter Administration (govt lost). The last time the court has blocked a vertical merger was during the Nixon administration. So since about 50 years mergers have been implemented without much issue. AT&T says they don't know if this opposition is due to Trump's grudge against CNN, but they say their deals isn't much different that previous ones. My personal opinion, is that the president will be a victim of his poorly considered comments concerning CNN, which some will say are indicative of bias, and the deal goes through.

WaPo again, lolz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nd-time-warner-merger/?utm_term=.1a8eea38b72f

Americans don’t want antitrust to be a political tool of any president. But both Democrats and Republicans have to be careful not to open the door to an equally dangerous prospect — of dangerous monopolists wielding flimsy or even untrue political threats to justify their concentrations of power, especially over flows of information and news. As the case progresses, it is vital the public distinguish carefully between two questions: Does the government case against this particular merger have merit; and how do you prevent the White House from ever interfering in this or any other antitrust case.


On the first question, the basic facts are the same as in October 2016, and citizens should oppose the deal for the same reasons they did 13 months ago. The business model of a combined AT&T Time Warner is rife with conflicts of interest. AT&T’s direct control over essential news and entertainment would give that corporation a permanent pricing advantage over rival cable networks. Similarly, AT&T would have a natural interest in favoring its own channels on its cable, satellite, and mobile video distribution networks, over other networks.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So, when Democrats are racist and vote against the Civil Rights Act, they're really Republicans.

And, when the vast majority of the Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act... ehhh... didn't really matter, even though they voted for it at higher percentages than Democrats.

And, we, the ones who tell it the way it actually, really, exactly happened, are the ones revising history.

Sure. Right. When you put it that way...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Another one bites the dust...

WaPo: Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them — with nudity, groping and lewd calls:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...81fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.0f6c886bf85c

This one doesn't surprise me... he always set off my "nothing but a creep" detector.

And he doubles down on the ginormous d**k factor with the opening of his statement:

In my 45 years of journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I've worked.

Sure, Chuck... was that when you were walking around them naked, talking nasty on the phone to them or grabbing whichever of their body parts struck your fancy at the moment?

Please excuse me... I feel the need to go vomit.