• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Harvey Weinstein Tells Us About the Liberal World

akyron said:
Oreilly works for fox?

News says that dude was fired as a result of internal inquiry.

The irony here is palpable that he uses a clinton guy to make himself look better.

Just over a week ago, Mr. O’Reilly hired the crisis communications expert Mark Fabiani — who worked in the Clinton White House — to respond to The Times. In a statement, Mr. O’Reilly suggested that his prominence made him a target.

“Just like other prominent and controversial people,” the statement read, “I’m vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity. In my more than 20 years at Fox News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department, even on the anonymous hotline.

“But most importantly, I’m a father who cares deeply for my children and who would do anything to avoid hurting them in any way. And so I have put to rest any controversies to spare my children.

Charge all the predators if they can. Abuse of power is pretty messed up no matter the form it takes.
Click to expand...

Ah. My bad - I misread it. It was back in January that Fox knew he'd paid out a $32M settlement, and the day afterwards, they renewed his contract. That means that the NYT and NBC and Fox are all just as guilty when it comes to hiding the predator. That sounds to me like the problem is with corporatism rather than a political lean in either direction.

That being said, y'all DID still elect Trump, and y'all knew full well how many women had come out with accusations, and what he himself had admitted to on video.
 
MrPeanut said:
I like some of Frank's stuff. I would like to point out that even though he does go after Liberalism a lot you'd better believe that doesn't mean he has any respect for Conservatism.
Click to expand...

Well I have his book sitting on the shelf in my living room. I read it back when it came out. I live on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro. Basically, he thinks that if the Democrats had remained the old strongly pro-labor / pro-union party it used to be, that it would be winning states like Kansas. The Democratic Party didn't win in Kansas even when it was a big pro-labor party. It's class and cultural issues that determine votes.

The reason why Democrats have had a tough time of it lately is they have more voters, but their voters are very concentrated. Republicans have less voters, but their voters are much more spread out.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So...if that's the case, then those nations that have really low taxes should be kicking ass, economically speaking, right? AND those nations that have high taxes should be doing economically very poorly, right?

So tell me, when it comes to democracies, what nations have the highest standards of living, and have the healthiest economies? And are those nations high-tax or low-tax nations? I'll be waiting right here for your answer.
Click to expand...

Let's just take the high tax nation, the one where I live, Sweden. Having kept out of WWII (as well as WWI) Sweden in the 40s and 50s was rich and had about the highest standard of living in Europe. Ever since, in spite of spending almost nothing on defence, our standard of living, relative to other states, has been in steady decline.

Important elements of living standards are health care, care of the elderly and education. All three, once very good in Sweden, have declined and continue to do so quite rapidly.

Here are some countries where the SoL is imporving - tax as a percentge of GDP: S Korea 33.6%, Canada 39.8%, Australia 34.3%, the Czech Republic (which has the lowest unemployment in the EU) 36.3%. And some here, where relative SoL is in decline: Belgium 47.9%, Sweden 50.5%, France 47.9%, Denmark 50.8%.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
WRONG! Are you wrong in that the newspapers wrongly buried the story? No. But you ARE wrong in that Weinstein's abuse was NOT known among the liberal rank-and-file, the regular liberal in the street such as myself. Once the rank-and-file liberals found out about it, Weinstein's career was over, done, kaput. Same thing when John Edwards' marital infidelity was exposed - his political career effectively ended that week.

But once the conservative rank-and-file found out about Trump's and Bill O'Reilly's abuse, what happened? They elected Trump president, and there's no apparent blowback at all at Fox's renewal of O'Reilly's contract.
Click to expand...

What you or any other Liberal at the street level knew is irrelevent.
You didnt have the power and authority to put a stop to this.

The NYTs and NBC who is STILL protecting their President who told Farrow to take a hiken had that power. Actresses like Jane Fonda had that power

They put political affiliation and agenda over the safety and security of dozens of woman, and should be held accountable by any real Liberal
 
And alas making this all about politics misses the point completely and allows for the continuation of this behavior.

This is not a Liberal issue or a Conservative issue, it's a man issue, it's a power issue, it's a wealth issue.

Those who want this to be something purely about politics are really, the worst kind of people.
 
Sweden said:
Let's just take the high tax nation, the one where I live, Sweden. Having kept out of WWII (as well as WWI) Sweden in the 40s and 50s was rich and had about the highest standard of living in Europe. Ever since, in spite of spending almost nothing on defence, our standard of living, relative to other states, has been in steady decline.

Important elements of living standards are health care, care of the elderly and education. All three, once very good in Sweden, have declined and continue to do so quite rapidly.

Here are some countries where the SoL is imporving - tax as a percentge of GDP: S Korea 33.6%, Canada 39.8%, Australia 34.3%, the Czech Republic (which has the lowest unemployment in the EU) 36.3%. And some here, where relative SoL is in decline: Belgium 47.9%, Sweden 50.5%, France 47.9%, Denmark 50.8%.
Click to expand...

Now, do you have any examples of low-tax democracies that maintain a first-world standard of living?

Note: I'm referring only to democracies - otherwise one might point to a few of the OPEC nations in the ME...and I don't think any of us want to have their forms of government. That, and the only "low-tax" first-world democracy I know of is Singapore...but that's misleading since in addition to all taxes, all citizens are required to set aside something like 30% of their income in a mandatory savings account to pay for property, health care, or education...which means that it's effectively a tax - meaning that Singapore is not truly a low-tax democracy. There's LOTS of third-world democracies, but there are no first-world democracies that do not have "big government", high effective taxes, and strong regulation. Having all three of course does not ensure first-world status, but lacking any one of the three does seem to indicate that a first-world status is impossible without all three.
 
Fenton said:
What you or any other Liberal at the street level knew is irrelevent.
You didnt have the power and authority to put a stop to this.

The NYTs and NBC who is STILL protecting their President who told Farrow to take a hiken had that power. Actresses like Jane Fonda had that power

They put political affiliation and agenda over the safety and security of dozens of woman, and should be held accountable by any real Liberal
Click to expand...

Irrelevant? That's your excuse now? The plain and simple FACT is the moment the liberal rank-and-file found out, Weinstein's career - like John Edward's - came to an abrupt end...whereas the conservative rank-and-file knew full well what Trump had admitted to, and how many women were accusing Trump, and yet they still elected him president.

You can't get around that. It's not the NYT or NBC that elects a president, just it's not Fox that elects a president. It's the PEOPLE, the ordinary everyday rank-and-file. Y'all knew what Trump was, y'all knew how often he lied, how crude and brutish his conduct was...but you still ELECTED him anyway.

You can deny it all you want, but you still own Trump. YOU accepted everything he did and (apparently, if your defense of him is any indication) voted for him anyway. That's on YOU, not on Fox.
 
LowDown said:
This essay is by Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" (No right winger he.)



If the Nazis were in power these people would all be wearing swastika arm bands, expounding on scientific racism, and touting their access to The Leader all the while certain of their moral correctness.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/21/harvey-weinstein-liberal-world
Click to expand...

To politicize sexual harassment is really naive. It exists everywhere where men feel superior to women and think they can minulate them to get what they want. And they succeed because women are threatened and demoralized. So many women are now speaking out and I hope that is makes MEN aware of just how prevalent this is. It will certainly help, but not stop in my opinion.
 
FastPace said:
They already believe in scientific sexism.

But they may be wrong--assuming an evolutionary root to sexism--to the extent if Weinstein or any other man gropes a woman's behind, or seeks to use his dominate social status position to strategically negotiate a sexual exchange in his favor, that this is "un-natrural" and purely rooted in social conditioning and psychological issues

But they militantly march, and cheer, the scientific sexism that Bruce Jenner is and always was a woman, based upon sexist stereoptypes he now fulfills. This they claim is 100% "natural" and has nothing at all to do social conditioning and psychological issues.

The complaints of women--in an evolutionary world that is cruel, competitive, and about advantages vs disadvantages, about discrimination--just provides evidence for the veracity of religion which moves from philosophical reasoning rather than from a combined position of observation and amorality.

Humans are the only creatures on earth that have "sexual harassment." What we call forcible rape among humans goes on all the time among other animals. Other animals don't have courts, police, jails, philosophers, or Popes. Only humans.

So, what I'm saying is... I don't give a rats behind about liberals "scientific sexism" or any of their frequent "look other animals do X sexually so it must, has to be, purely okay for humans to do it because that proves it is 'natural.'"

When Christian philosophers speak about what is not natural they do so from a philosophical position of human capacity to reason and order things morally or ethically in that thinking. They don't mean "what is never observed among other non-human creatures of earth" from a stand point of observational science.

In fact, from a stand point of observational science you can observe human males groping women, cat calling women, trying to use their money, influence, high social status, or power to negotiate sexual favors from a woman. And that is all amoral in the natural sciences. You will observe it and then try to come up with an explanation that assumes a biological evolutionary development to the causation of the behavior and thinking.

There are no "bad guys" and "good guys" in biological evolutionary science. There are only "winners" and "losers." The more women a man impregnates and thereby passes his genes on into the genetic pool, the more of a "winner" he is. Weinstein is not a "bad guy" in the science of biology. He is only a "bad guy" in religion. Because religion deals with a philosophical thing called morality. Ergo, it is impossible to be non-religious if one subscribes to good guys and bad guys, to some non-physical notion called "morality."

So, liberals are inherently religious, and within their religion they have created a construct of thinking we can call "scientific sexism" which is reminiscent of "scientific racism," which ruled the thinking of the Western liberal and conservative world through the first half of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? You typed 6000 words of nonsense there.

You do not need to be religious to conduct moral reasoning. There are countless systems of philosophy that are not rooted in any religion, Naturalism and Humanism for example. This is a simple logical falacy. Religions contain moral philosophy therefore all moral philosophy is religion. False.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What Dennis Hastert Tells Us About the Conservative World

Since we're doing the Cherry-Pick-then-Group-Blame game, republicans are clearly pedophiles. They elect child molesters into our highest offices because that's what best represents their values.
Click to expand...

And nobody voted for Weinstien.
 
Fenton said:
What you or any other Liberal at the street level knew is irrelevent.
You didnt have the power and authority to put a stop to this.

The NYTs and NBC who is STILL protecting their President who told Farrow to take a hiken had that power. Actresses like Jane Fonda had that power

They put political affiliation and agenda over the safety and security of dozens of woman, and should be held accountable by any real Liberal
Click to expand...

Or more likely they put a realistic and rational evaluation of how much damage it would do to their careers over the safety and security of dozens of women. You only need to look to Anita Hill and the early accusers of Cosby to see what comes of trying to shine a spot light on a serial abuser with power.
 
ObamacareFail said:
That's rather desperate on your part. Hastert was elected in one congressional district and without his constituents knowing he was a pedophile. To label republican politicians in general as pedophiles based on Hastert is the product of a sick mind.
Click to expand...

That's rather desperate on your part. You have accusations on Bill Clinton and people still voted for him nationwide and you have an actual recording of Trump voice bragging about sexual assualt and republicans still voted for him nationwide.
 
vash1012 said:
Or more likely they put a realistic and rational evaluation of how much damage it would do to their careers over the safety and security of dozens of women. You only need to look to Anita Hill and the early accusers of Cosby to see what comes of trying to shine a spot light on a serial abuser with power.
Click to expand...

You really think Jane Fonda kept her mouth shut for a year because she was worried that exposing Weinstein would ruin her career ?

No, she kept her mouth shut because a year ago exposing Weisntein would have pulled the focus away a campaign that included atacking Trump for being a sexual predator.
 
All of this back and forth simply points to the truth that sexual aggression is about the assertion of power, a tendency common to politicians since politics also is about power, and exists independently of left/right persuasions. Debating it on left/right terms therefore misses the point and is a waste of time.
 
Fenton said:
Weinstein tells us that Liberals will initially cover for men like Weinstein and only condemn their own when absolutley forced to.

Like the NYTs burring this story back in 2004 and NBC rejecting Farrows story months ago. NBC is still defending their President by the way
Click to expand...
'.
But its okay for Faux News to stick with O'Reilly because he settled the matter "personally". LOL!
 
chuckiechan said:
Either did Harvey, and you don’t know anything of Bill beyond what has been reported. Either way, you Harvey doesn’t cancel out you Bill. You just have two more perverts in the Democrat tent. It must be getting so crowded, they will have their own table at the convention.
Click to expand...

So the Republicans elected a pedophile and put him at the top of the party and all you can talk about is Democrats? Is pedophilia one of the issues you're soft on?

ObamacareFail said:
That's rather desperate on your part. Hastert was elected in one congressional district and without his constituents knowing he was a pedophile. To label republican politicians in general as pedophiles based on Hastert is the product of a sick mind.
Click to expand...

Then why does some unelected random in Hollywood represent all of the left? If you think this group blame bull**** is wrong you agree with me, you just need to work on your recognition of satire.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Well I have his book sitting on the shelf in my living room. I read it back when it came out. I live on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro. Basically, he thinks that if the Democrats had remained the old strongly pro-labor / pro-union party it used to be, that it would be winning states like Kansas. The Democratic Party didn't win in Kansas even when it was a big pro-labor party. It's class and cultural issues that determine votes.

The reason why Democrats have had a tough time of it lately is they have more voters, but their voters are very concentrated. Republicans have less voters, but their voters are much more spread out.
Click to expand...

I think I like him because his views translate to my state very well. I don't know much about Kansas politics. Historically, WV has had very strong unions and large Democratic representation. His views nail politics where I live. I imagine the "Blue Wall" that fell down this past cycle has similar politics to what I'm used to. I agree that the South doesn't really share the same history in terms of pro-labor politics.
 
LowDown said:
This essay is by Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" (No right winger he.)



If the Nazis were in power these people would all be wearing swastika arm bands, expounding on scientific racism, and touting their access to The Leader all the while certain of their moral correctness.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/21/harvey-weinstein-liberal-world
Click to expand...



What do Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, and the *****-grabber-in-chief they helped elect tell us about the conservative world?







Since we're doing stupidly overbroad and dishonest generalizations about entire groups of people, that is....
 
Mr Person said:
What do Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, and the *****-grabber-in-chief they helped elect tell us about the conservative world?
Click to expand...



What it tells us is that scum-baggery is not party specific. Perhaps rather than each side calling out the other, each side should clean up their own house
 
ashurbanipal said:
Sort of the same as labeling liberals as womanizers based on Weinstein, eh? I didn't even know how Weinstein is until this story broke...
Click to expand...

But then I know of nobody on the right who has labeled all libruls as womanizers. However the libruls do have their examples......such as Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton. For the republicans...the most noatable example was "Senator Bob Packwood".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom