Tweet
-
-
-
[ame]https://youtu.be/vnOyMSEWNTs[/ame]I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it onComment
-
Charlie Rose, C'MON DOWN!!!!Comment
-
I enjoy most of the humor on this subject but this has to be one of the most useless news stories of all time.
I asked my wife today what she thought about this groping stuff that started about a month ago with the Weinstein revelations and continues unabated with "shocking" revelations of sexual misconduct with new names of the perps appearing about every 36h.
She said the underlying principle - men use positions of power or stature to sexually harass women (sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors). This DOES need to be exposed in the most forceful manner and, when it occurs, people in a position to hear the charge, substantiate it and then do something about it, need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT and they need to be held accountable as well. Politicize it? Just stupid.
What the interchange about sexual harassment on this board has become is an interchange about it between different political persuasions trying to smear the other. This seems to me to be reflective of the general exchange of groping news in the public domain. It's being done in this absurd, tit-for-tat circus that lends nothing to understanding how people like Weinstein, O'Reilly, Airs and others, get away with the shit they get away with. Neither does it further the objective of holding the perpetrators of these actions accountable so as to dissuade this kind of conduct (Well, FOX certainly did).
Forum members can post whatever they want here that is within the rules but without pointing fingers those of you doing this know who you are. Calling you out on it. Post whatever you like to continue to post to make yourself look stupid and wholly disinterested in discussing the problem intelligently and offering reasonable solutions to stop this kind of behavior.Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! timeComment
-
So defending pedophilia because of politics make you look stupid? Profound.Comment
-
This thread has turned into a pre-election Facebook newsfeed since the middle of October
Stupid-assed alt right memes and "clever" troll posts
We need more Pepe the Frog. Cause that shit is funny!I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it onComment
-
The title of "Most Accurate Pollster" changes nearly every election. No one's consistently the best. Rasmussen in particular earned a very good reputation in 2004, but then was off the mark badly in 2008 and 2012 (Rasmussen predicted a Romney victory). The first link shows which pollsters were most accurate in 2012 (Rasmussen was one of the worst). The second link (which admittedly hasn't been updated in over a year) shows each outfits accuracy over timeOriginally posted by Da Geezer View Post
Comment
-
Alabama pastor defends Moore by saying he's sure the accusers are being paid, that they must have been having some 'sweet dreams' to think this up, and besides, plenty of 14-year-olds look 20.
?I don?t know how much these women are getting paid, but I can only believe they?re getting a healthy sum,? Wise told the Boston Globe.
?There ought to be a statute of limitations on this stuff. How these gals came up with this, I don?t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus, there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20,? Wise added.
Comment
-
The reporter who broke the Charlie Rose scoop says she's being flooded with stories about him from more women. Guy must've been a perv for a long, long time.Comment
-
Not Charlie Rose!Comment
-
Trump's FCC expected to abolish net neutrality rules tomorrow
Comment
-
That is fucked up.I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it onComment
-
MAGA!!!Comment
-
DON'T GUT NET NEUTRALITY. IT’S GOOD FOR PEOPLE AND BUSINESS
THE INVENTION AND commercialization of the internet is one of the things that makes America great. And what makes the internet great is the easy, unrestricted, and free availability of all kinds of information, regardless of the content provider, a regime known as network neutrality. Having supported the fast growth of internet-based companies that currently serve as the backbone of today's US economy, net neutrality is pro-business, pro-growth, and pro-freedom.
WIRED OPINION
Nicholas Economides (@N_Economides) is an economics professor at New York University Stern School of Business and executive director of the NET Institute.
But President-elect Donald Trump's appointment of Jeff Eisenach and Mark Jamison to the Federal Communications Commission's transition team sends a clear message: Net neutrality is in grave danger. Eisenach consulted for Verizon, and Jamison worked for Sprint. These companies, together with AT&T and cable TV providers, are fierce enemies of network neutrality, since the system limits their ability to exercise market power and exploit content providers and consumers. Without net neutrality rules, prioritization of internet traffic by telecom and cable companies would skew the competition for content, as well as tilt the scales in the dissemination of all political and social views in favor of websites and companies that are able to pay internet access providers.
While abolishing network neutrality might initially increase profits for telecom and cable companies, long-term, it would harm both internet-focused companies and consumers. Telecom and cable companies claim that consumers will pay less if they abandon network neutrality, but economic models dispute that. Cable and telecom companies want to kill network neutrality to increase their profits, not decrease prices for consumers. Without net neutrality, consumers would be forced to access a distorted internet, where information is prioritized according to the financial interests of telecom and cable companies.
Following a liberalization of regulations by the FCC, in 2005 AT&T and other telecom and cable companies proposed to impose tolls on information flows and to prioritize the flow of information based on whether a website paid the toll. So, for example, if the Wall Street Journal paid AT&T but the New York Times did not, the Journal information would reach web users faster, creating an uneven playing field in news. Similarly, if Yahoo paid AT&T but Google did not, Yahoo's search results would show up first, tilting the field of competition among search providers.
By employing a system of prioritization, telecom and cable companies would define the terms of competition in internet search, in news, and in the myriad of markets that we reach through the internet. What's more, telecom and cable companies sell video and telecom services through their traditional networks that are in direct competition with such services delivered through the internet. Imposing prioritization could easily tilt competition in favor of cable and telecom companies, to the detriment of many millions of consumers.
Fortunately for American business and consumers, in 2015, after a long regulatory battle, the FCC passed rules that codified network neutrality. The rules require that telecom and cable companies treat all information flows equally and do not collect fees to prioritize any application or content. But after Trump's election, net neutrality's opponents, traditional entrenched telecom and cable monopoly interests with strong lobbying arms, are once again lobbying to abolish network neutrality.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
Network neutrality is crucial for growth of both new and established companies; virtually all sales, from the largest company to the smallest new business, now rely on the internet. Eliminating unfettered access to internet content and services would hamper these businesses' ability to grow and would negatively impact economic growth nationwide. President-elect Trump needs to look more carefully at the importance of network neutrality.
This is not a run-of-the-mill regulation tying the hands of business, as the anti-net neutrality lobbyists say. On the contrary, net neutrality is pro-business in the best and fullest sense of the term, guaranteeing that new companies can grow unimpeded and help accelerate the US economy. Net neutrality preserves undistorted consumers' freedom of choice. And at the same time, net neutrality facilitates a level playing field for political and social interaction on the internet, enhancing freedom.
These benefits far outweigh the profit increases that the entrenched telecom and cable monopolists may reap if network neutrality is abolished. Preserving network neutrality will help "make America great again."I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it onComment
Comment