PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on May 18, 2017, 07:33:06 AM
-
Roger Ailes, who built Fox News into a cable powerhouse before leaving the company last year, died Thursday morning at the age of 77.
The Ohio-born television pioneer was a confidante of presidents and an acknowledged master of communications. He founded Fox News in 1996 and built it into the nation's long-running No. 1 cable news network. Ailes resigned from Fox in July amid charges of sexual harassment.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/18/roger-ailes-former-president-fox-news-dead-at-77.html
Say what you will about his character flaws surrounding sexual harassment, but he did build a unique, very successful cable empire in an era predominantly comprised of Liberal/Progressive, Democrat controlled media. I didn't know much about him, but I do believe he was an advisor to Nixon in his 1968 Presidential campaign.
-
Sexual harassment charges mean nothing to me these days. I can't speak to whether he is guilty or innocent in this specific circumstance, but in general, "sexual harassment" has been so weaponized it has lost all meaning. It's an insult to real victims of sexual assault.
Just like racial "microaggression" it is a new way to transform the most basic and benign human behavior, such as facial expressions, or a compliment, into a comparison with the worst kinds of atrocities.
Asking a woman for a date is equivalent to rape by a stranger in a dark alley.
Crossing the street when you see a black, even if that's not WHY you crossed, is equivalent to horsewhipping a slave pre Civil War. (It was subconscious!!)
This is absolute witch hunt hysteria on so many fronts, and usually (though not always) targeting white males. (Black males if they are conservative or rich.)
Basing racism or sexual harassment on the FEELING of the "victim" rather than the intent of the actor is taking us down a horrific road in which anyone at any time can be accused of a crime for virtually ANY act.
-
At this point in our society, you cannot say much to people with whom you work. I haven't complimented women in the workplace for decades. I don't know what Ailes did, or didn't do to the women at Fox News. There seemed to have been several allegations, and at least one law suit. In my mind there must have been something there, or the gold diggers got damn lucky. Who knows.
I read a separate article recently on Fox News that has them floundering due to the recent leadership, and scheduling/host changes. I gave up most of my cable channels a while back, as I wasn't watching much, and downgraded my service, so don't watch Fox anyway. I get most of my info on the internet.
-
The pussy-fi-cation of America is truly the child of attention whore liberal women.
They can't compete - or believe they can't compete - on a level playing field with men, so they create this state of permanent PMS to cover their failures and destroy those that succeed.
-
The pussy-fi-cation of America is truly the child of attention whore liberal women.
They can't compete - or believe they can't compete - on a level playing field with men, so they create this state of permanent PMS to cover their failures and destroy those that succeed.
I have long said that women essentially have taken over the agenda, and also have feminized society, and men to our collective detriment. Women run education for the most part, and that has helped neuter boys. When I meet a Millennial or younger person today that "gets it", I am truly shocked.
-
I've always thought giving women the vote was the single worst mistake our country made.
-
I've always thought giving women the vote was the single worst mistake our country made.
It goes farther back than that - everything started going to hell when men were given the right to vote!
It's a dirty job, but I'm willing to sacrifice and become King of the U.S.A.
My first decree would be:
All will make merry -- on pain of death!
-
I've always thought giving women the vote was the single worst mistake our country made.
April Fool's in May!?
-
April Fool's in May!?
No.
-
I've always thought giving women the vote was the single worst mistake our country made.
My wife threatened to divorce me when I said that. I had to convince her I was joking, but she was still pissed.
But I do think the right to vote should be restricted to those over 30.
-
I don't think anyone who doesn't pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
-
I don't want to speak for Rush, but I think what SHE is referring to is the inherent volatility, and emotional state, and swings of SOME women.
I also think the voters should have "skin in the game", meaning they have to live with the consequences of their voting records, which often translates into higher taxes, more regulations, and more restrictions on freedom, and liberty.
-
But I do think the right to vote should be restricted to those over 30.
YES YES! I have been thinking this for a long time. If this country is wise enough to require a president to be at least 35, then it recognizes a certain amount of wisdom comes with life experience, so why are we allowing very young people with no life experience to vote the president in? I'd make an exception for anyone who has served in the military.
I don't think anyone who doesn't pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
I agree with this also. It's another reason I favor a tax system that taxes everyone, even the very poor, even if the tax they pay is only one penny. EVERYONE should shoulder some responsibility and have some skin in the game as Anthony says, no matter how little.
I don't want to speak for Rush, but I think what SHE is referring to is the inherent volatility, and emotional state, and swings of SOME women.
Yes I am a she and yes I am serious. Women vote by a higher margin for things that are destructive to this country, such as left wing socialists (Obama), gun control (anti-second amendment), environmental regulations that destroy the economy and the energy industry in the U.S., they vote against military spending, etc. etc. in other words they vote liberal/progressive by a higher margin than do men, for whatever reason.
Anthony supposes I think they do because of "inherent volatility, and emotional state, and swings of SOME women" but I don't know whether this is the case. These things (PMS swings) are stereotypical of women and like any stereotype they have more than a little truth at core, but whether they are a liability in making political decisions, I don't think they necessarily are. I myself certainly fit the stereotype, with mood swings all over the map in a single day. Yet I vote with a cool head after careful logical analysis of the facts. So I would disagree with a man saying I should not have the vote because I am more moody than a man.
What I think is more relevant is that women in general, throughout history, have not been the main breadwinners; men have. By biology or by culture, men's overriding concern has always been, can he support and protect his family? This leaves men much more knowledgeable and concerned about caring for a thriving economy, and with a greater innate understanding of the need to maintain access to physical resources and to project strength to potential enemies.
Women on the other hand have a better sense of empathy. I think it comes from the need to get inside the head of helpless infants, and it transfers to anyone. This isn't a bad thing at all. But it does leave them vulnerable to manipulation by those who would use social causes as a means to gain power. Because men tend to think more linearly, they seem better able to predict unintended consequences than women, who often are too focused on current suffering, and unable to look to the long run.
I'll bring up prohibition again as the perfect example. It was women who led the dry movement, because they saw real suffering caused by alcohol, but they completely miscalculated that the consequences of banning alcohol would be even worse. However, once those terrible consequences came to be, to their credit, it was again women who led the movement to repeal prohibition. Women had to see for themselves the suffering prohibition had caused before they "got it". It's just too bad the whole country had to be jerked back and forth in the process by these females, and we are still left with a bad template for dealing with substance abuse.
All of this of course is generalities. You can't draw a conclusion about any individual. No, I don't actually think women should be denied the vote just on their gender any more than I think blacks should be denied the vote based on their skin color. I said it was a mistake to give women the vote, I didn't say I would have disagreed with making that mistake. And it would be wrong to deny blacks the vote just because they too vote more liberal.
In an ideal world I would say in order to have the vote, you should be required to have had a job yourself (not your husband) in a field involving basic physical resources, such as farming, energy production, construction, manufacturing, or the military. In other words, a job contributing to the enrichment of the economy or the protection of the country. Paying taxes isn't enough because you can pay tax on your welfare check and it's not the same thing as understanding where that money comes from. Until you have contributed with your own hands what it takes to keep a society physically alive, you shouldn't qualify to vote, because survival of the nation is really the only thing that matters in the end. If the nation doesn't survive, there's nothing to vote for anyway.
-
What I think is more relevant is that women in general, throughout history, have not been the main breadwinners; men have. By biology or by culture, men's overriding concern has always been, can he support and protect his family? This leaves men much more knowledgeable and concerned about caring for a thriving economy, and with a greater innate understanding of the need to maintain access to physical resources and to project strength to potential enemies.
Women on the other hand have a better sense of empathy. I think it comes from the need to get inside the head of helpless infants, and it transfers to anyone. This isn't a bad thing at all. But it does leave them vulnerable to manipulation by those who would use social causes as a means to gain power. Because men tend to think more linearly, they seem better able to predict unintended consequences than women, who often are too focused on current suffering, and unable to look to the long run.
I'll bring up prohibition again as the perfect example. It was women who led the dry movement, because they saw real suffering caused by alcohol, but they completely miscalculated that the consequences of banning alcohol would be even worse. However, once those terrible consequences came to be, to their credit, it was again women who led the movement to repeal prohibition. Women had to see for themselves the suffering prohibition had caused before they "got it". It's just too bad the whole country had to be jerked back and forth in the process by these females, and we are still left with a bad template for dealing with substance abuse.
This all makes a lot of sense Rush. The unintended consequences, and the effects beyond looking at just the surface of issues, is an important consideration. Look at at LBJ's "Great Society", and "War on Poverty". It all sounds good on it surface, and while the purpose seemed benign, charitable, and altruistic, the results have been cruel, and destructive. The real purpose was power, and votes, and the poor were just used as fodder.