politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Burnham’s nationalise the railways plan could
Comments
-
And the private company that ran the rails before them also failed - and failed harder. It's almost as if running the rails without running the trains that go on the rails is a bloody stupid way of structuring a national railway system.JosiasJessop said:A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.0 -
I generally reckon the prognostications of those who say - in any context - "aha, this problem could have been avoided simply by selling at the top of the market, as any fule knoweth!" can safely be ignored. (Except, sadly, in the court of public opinion, where its sagacity goes unquestioned.)
Whether conversation verges on topics of house prices or shares or gold or baseball cards or tulip bulbs, I've found such strategic complete ignoral a good rule of thumb for the promotion of sanity and the prevention of tedium.0 -
I know it's not a like-for-like comparison, but it does make me wary of this "Corbyn would have got the nomination without 'help' had he started earlier" argument.HYUFD said:
True, but most of the new 2015 intake was from the leftMyBurningEars said:
I've certainly heard this put forward as the reason why Corbyn struggled so much to find the nominations (Burnham had already hoovered the lefties up already), though it strikes me as odd given that (from memory - anyone help me out here?) Diane Abbott also struggled to make up the numbers during the nomination period in the previous leadership election, and she'd have been drawing from a similar pool to Corbyn.HYUFD said:
Some of those who initially joined Burnham's campaign did so because there was no genuine leftwing in the race at that timeThe_Apocalypse said:
They aren't that mad!HYUFD said:Corbyn also expresses the views of a lot of Labour activists at the moment as his polling shows, indeed, some Burnham MPs may well have moved to Corbyn had they not already declared for Burnham first
0 -
Surely everything society has been doing for at least the last 20 years (if not 40 years) has been counter to this. And yet despite this the strong prevalence of female fantasy and desire to be objectified in the right environment remains.The_Apocalypse said:
I have read up on it. And the trouble is, both men and women see women as sexual objects - which doesn't make sense, given that most women aren't attracted to other women.Dair said:
I don't need a subjective opinion (or as you put it "I think") because there is pretty extensive, properly founded scientific research which a few hours on the internet lets you fill in pretty much all the blanks.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
Perhaps the focus needs to switch to accepting human sexuality and to educate on where this is appropriate and where objectification is not appropriate rather than to somehow change human sexuality.0 -
Mrs Scrap advises as a disinterested non-political anorak that of the 4 candidates - she's never heard of Kendall or Corbyn and of the other two Yvette seems by far the most impressive and trustworthy.
She might be keener if she knew of my long-standing bet with Shadsy on Yvette for LotO placed in 2011 I think....
0 -
notme said:
The most important graph you will ever see about railway usage.Toms said:
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise.JosiasJessop said:A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.
Privatisation of the railways works - and has doubled passenger numbers?
So they are just victims of their own success.
Labour's solution:
(1) nationalise
(2) less people use
(3) service no longer over-stretched
(4) result!
0 -
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
0 -
Haha.ReggieCide said:An elementary lesson, simply put - shareholders ultimately call the shots in all companies
Hahahhahaha.
Hahahahahahhahahahaha.0 -
It is not guaranteed, but certainly had he declared at the same time as Burnham it is plausibleMyBurningEars said:
I know it's not a like-for-like comparison, but it does make me wary of this "Corbyn would have got the nomination without 'help' had he started earlier" argument.HYUFD said:
True, but most of the new 2015 intake was from the leftMyBurningEars said:
I've certainly heard this put forward as the reason why Corbyn struggled so much to find the nominations (Burnham had already hoovered the lefties up already), though it strikes me as odd given that (from memory - anyone help me out here?) Diane Abbott also struggled to make up the numbers during the nomination period in the previous leadership election, and she'd have been drawing from a similar pool to Corbyn.HYUFD said:
Some of those who initially joined Burnham's campaign did so because there was no genuine leftwing in the race at that timeThe_Apocalypse said:
They aren't that mad!HYUFD said:Corbyn also expresses the views of a lot of Labour activists at the moment as his polling shows, indeed, some Burnham MPs may well have moved to Corbyn had they not already declared for Burnham first
0 -
How is everything society has been doing over the last forty years counter to this?Dair said:
Surely everything society has been doing for at least the last 20 years (if not 40 years) has been counter to this. And yet despite this the strong prevalence of female fantasy and desire to be objectified remains.The_Apocalypse said:
I have read up on it. And the trouble is, both men and women see women as sexual objects - which doesn't make sense, given that most women aren't attracted to other women.Dair said:
I don't need a subjective opinion (or as you put it "I think") because there is pretty extensive, properly founded scientific research which a few hours on the internet lets you fill in pretty much all the blanks.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
I question whether women wanting to be objectified is actually true, but even so - society in general tells women that being objectified is a good thing, and that a large part of female value is in their appearance anyway. In this sense objectification, for many is an affirmation of their value. So it's not too surprising that there are women out there who see objectification as a positive thing, even when studies have been done showing its negative impact on female image and self-esteem.0 -
To wit: not paying Stephen Hester market rates and ultimately pushing him out. The latter possibly the right of a shareholder; the former possibly not.ReggieCide said:
You confirm my reading of your competence in this matter. An elementary lesson, simply put - shareholders ultimately call the shots in all companies and RBS's majority shareholder has flexed and continues to flex its muscles both publicly and privately. You correctly identify Osborne's motivation in managing the UK's nationalised shareholding but the issues here are much more complicated so I will leave them fallow as you are clearly pretty much out of your depth on this subject.Dair said:
RBS is not run by the UK government. The UK government owns a stake in the bank which is an asset in its portfolio of assets. It has no governance role in RBS. The bank is run exactly the same, in every conceivable way, as it would be if it were owned entirely outwith the state.ReggieCide said:
On first reading I thought this has to be a joke but I now suspect that it isn't intended as such. Therefore it can only be the product of a total lack of understanding of business/ finance. RBS is also not a portfolio and I suspect we could all grow a lot older, or die in the process of waiting for RBS to turn a profit.Dair said:
If the nation is competent enough to manage a significant holding of debt, it must surely be competent enough to manage a portfolio of assets.TheWhiteRabbit said:
The government is not an investment company. It does not hold stakes in businesses simply in the belief that they'll produce a return. Not even Jeremy Corbyn wants that. Nor is there any indication that RBS shares will rise particularly - but hopefully they will as a result of the government playing its only remaining card: implanting the idea that starting to sell RBS implies confidence in its business.EPG said:Evening
I note the letters "RBS" did not appear here today. What on earth is Britain doing selling bank shares into a low interest rate environment after a sovereign debt crisis?
The only decision which Osborne should be making is "how do I get the best return for the public purse". That's clearly not how he is making the decision. It is either being done purely on an ideological basis or on a basis of rewarding his friends in the typical way of high level British state corruption.0 -
wow. The best advert for privatisation.notme said:
The most important graph you will ever see about railway usage.Toms said:
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise.JosiasJessop said:A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.
0 -
Since I sold my only car in 1973, and took up mainly cycling and walking, the number of cars on the road must surely have risen by six or eightfold (I would welcome precision here), speaking from a worm's eye aspect. Perhaps the rise from 1970ish was fuelled by desperation. I hope sociologists are on the case.notme said:
The most important graph you will ever see about railway usage.Toms said:
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise.JosiasJessop said:A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.0 -
Surely everything humans do is natural since humans are natural.The_Apocalypse said:
I have read up on it. And the trouble is, both men and women see women as sexual objects - which doesn't make sense, given that most women aren't attracted to other women.Dair said:
I don't need a subjective opinion (or as you put it "I think") because there is pretty extensive, properly founded scientific research which a few hours on the internet lets you fill in pretty much all the blanks.The_Apocalypse said:
So men are less creative than women then.Dair said:
It's based on the cues that various stimuli cause.The_Apocalypse said:
Given that women's 'imaginations' will produce visual images (inside their head) I can't see how women aren't somewhat visual anyway. I've always thought visual was a nice way of saying shallow, basically.Dair said:Not really.
Male and Female brains are wired somewhat differently. While it's true that (generally) a woman will be stimulated more by imagination, men are very much visual creatures.
On the subject of porn. When will the government do something about the BBC showing Hardcore Food Porn in primetime! All I can think about is heading down to Asda for an utterly enormous Black Forest Gateau. Won't somebody think of the children!
And I see you're a fan of the Great British Bake Off. Although I hate Black Forest Gateu with a passion. In fact I find gateus 'meh' in general....
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women
Randomly pulled article, all the research points to the same thing.
Also, judging by that link I assume you think sexual objectification is natural - I'd argue being attracted to someone and objectification are two different things, mind.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.0 -
For those returning from holiday, just to flag this again if anyone else wants to sign up.
There's now a dozen PBers on there ready to gloat at their successes - especially if TSE as expected is bottom of our league.
I've set up a Political Betting league on the free fantasy league game from the premier league.
http://fantasy.premierleague.com/
The code to join this private league is 1336513-316355
You can join up anonymously if you wish by choosing first and second names as I did - scrap and heap...
0 -
I can't agree. Arguably monogamy, going on computers, etc isn't natural but humans do it.AndyJS said:
Surely everything humans do is natural since humans are natural.The_Apocalypse said:
I have read up on it. And the trouble is, both men and women see women as sexual objects - which doesn't make sense, given that most women aren't attracted to other women.Dair said:
I don't need a subjective opinion (or as you put it "I think") because there is pretty extensive, properly founded scientific research which a few hours on the internet lets you fill in pretty much all the blanks.The_Apocalypse said:
So men are less creative than women then.Dair said:
It's based on the cues that various stimuli cause.The_Apocalypse said:
Given that women's 'imaginations' will produce visual images (inside their head) I can't see how women aren't somewhat visual anyway. I've always thought visual was a nice way of saying shallow, basically.Dair said:Not really.
Male and Female brains are wired somewhat differently. While it's true that (generally) a woman will be stimulated more by imagination, men are very much visual creatures.
On the subject of porn. When will the government do something about the BBC showing Hardcore Food Porn in primetime! All I can think about is heading down to Asda for an utterly enormous Black Forest Gateau. Won't somebody think of the children!
And I see you're a fan of the Great British Bake Off. Although I hate Black Forest Gateu with a passion. In fact I find gateus 'meh' in general....
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women
Randomly pulled article, all the research points to the same thing.
Also, judging by that link I assume you think sexual objectification is natural - I'd argue being attracted to someone and objectification are two different things, mind.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.
0 -
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
0 -
How Miliband's campaign could not find a minimum wage worker for a campaign event
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/team-miliband-minimum-wage-out-of-touch-arnie-graf-labour-election0 -
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
Actually my choice of words was poor. It's not "everything". However, there have been significant movements to change attitudes in this area, from the liberal media to the feminist movement and lots in between. Yes some areas, perhaps the mainstream press media seem to have made no progress.The_Apocalypse said:
How is everything society has been doing over the last forty years counter to this?Dair said:Surely everything society has been doing for at least the last 20 years (if not 40 years) has been counter to this. And yet despite this the strong prevalence of female fantasy and desire to be objectified remains.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
I question whether women wanting to be objectified is actually true, but even so - society in general tells women that being objectified is a good thing, and that a large part of female value is in their appearance anyway. In this sense objectification, for many is an affirmation of their value. So it's not too surprising that there are women out there who see objectification as a positive thing, even when studies have been done showing its negative impact on female image and self-esteem.
Overall, surely it is difficult to think that there are not significant societal changes in 2015 than in 1975? Yet, there does not seem to be any change in the desire amongst women for objectified roles in the right environment.
It's always difficult when you get to chicken and egg debates. Is EL James rich because women want to read about being objectified or do women want to be objectified because they've read Fifty Shades? On balance, given how much change there has been in society, I'm very much in the former camp. Clearly your view is different but I'm not clear what you're basing that on.0 -
Has he seen what he actually has?Dair said:
OK, I'll bite.HYUFD said:Too much information from Chris Christie at a NH rally
NEW Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is a Catholic, but, as he told a crowd in New Hampshire, that hasn't stopped him from using birth control.
"I'm a Catholic but I've used birth control, and not just the rhythm method," the presidential candidate said in the town hall event.
"My church has a teaching against birth control. Does that make me an awful Catholic? Because I believe and practiced that function during part of my life? I don't think so," he said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-rhythm-method-birth-control
Surely being Chris Christie is a pretty effective contraception in itself.
Boom, boom.
0 -
Hey!HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
Where are @Monty's impassioned screeds on why it is outrageous for a supporter of one party to intervene in the internal affairs of another?
Or is it ok when it's lefties undermining the Right?0 -
Much like the Herschel Walker tradeTheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
0 -
The story may not be general knowledge, but I learned the name and being the third party candidate the way I learned most things as a child - from The Simpsons .TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
0 -
What would have happened if Perot actually ran in the republican primaries in 92, I wonder.HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
@HYUFD
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.0 -
On women wanting to be objectified - again, I did address this in my previous post. That although there has been much societal change over the last couple of decades, women are not yet equal. There are still gender roles, and there are still double-standards in regard to the sexes. And despite the changes in women's role, women predominantly in the media are celebrated for their sexual appeal to men, as opposed to their actual achievements. This comes back to my previous post - that if we believe that women want to be objectified, then of course they do: society tells women its one of their main, if not main value. Everyone wants to feel valued.Dair said:
Actually my choice of words was poor. It's not "everything". However, there have been significant movements to change attitudes in this area, from the liberal media to the feminist movement and lots in between. Yes some areas, perhaps the mainstream press media seem to have made no progress.The_Apocalypse said:
How is everything society has been doing over the last forty years counter to this?Dair said:Surely everything society has been doing for at least the last 20 years (if not 40 years) has been counter to this. And yet despite this the strong prevalence of female fantasy and desire to be objectified remains.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
I question whether women wanting to be objectified is actually true, but even so - society in general tells women that being objectified is a good thing, and that a large part of female value is in their appearance anyway. In this sense objectification, for many is an affirmation of their value. So it's not too surprising that there are women out there who see objectification as a positive thing, even when studies have been done showing its negative impact on female image and self-esteem.
Overall, surely it is difficult to think that there are not significant societal changes in 2015 than in 1975? Yet, there does not seem to be any change in the desire amongst women for objectified roles in the right environment.
It's always difficult when you get to chicken and egg debates. Is EL James rich because women want to read about being objectified or do women want to be objectified because they've read Fifty Shades? On balance, given how much change there has been in society, I'm very much in the former camp. Clearly your view is different but I'm not clear what you're basing that on.
The mainstream media making no progress is the key. While feminists and the liberal media may have - to a degree put the idea of sexual objectification theory into public consciousness, it's not affected that much of the media - movies, music, newspapers, magazines, etc do still, to a large degree objectify women. The attitudes of those with power in the media hasn't changed.
0 -
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
Only if you believe that vertical integration is the only way forward. It isn't.Alistair said:
And the private company that ran the rails before them also failed - and failed harder. It's almost as if running the rails without running the trains that go on the rails is a bloody stupid way of structuring a national railway system.JosiasJessop said:A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.0 -
BBC Newsnight holding a wake for Kid's Company.0
-
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White HouseThe_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.The_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
Interesting point. There is a lot of "nod and a wink" pressure from any powerful shareholder of any company. Osborne could be quite open 'cos, how many are going to naysay a pay cut for a banker?Charles said:
To wit: not paying Stephen Hester market rates and ultimately pushing him out. The latter possibly the right of a shareholder; the former possibly not.ReggieCide said:
You confirm my reading of your competence in this matter. An elementary lesson, simply put - shareholders ultimately call the shots in all companies and RBS's majority shareholder has flexed and continues to flex its muscles both publicly and privately. You correctly identify Osborne's motivation in managing the UK's nationalised shareholding but the issues here are much more complicated so I will leave them fallow as you are clearly pretty much out of your depth on this subject.Dair said:
RBS is not run by the UK government. The UK government owns a stake in the bank which is an asset in its portfolio of assets. It has no governance role in RBS. The bank is run exactly the same, in every conceivable way, as it would be if it were owned entirely outwith the state.ReggieCide said:
On first reading I thought this has to be a joke but I now suspect that it isn't intended as such. Therefore it can only be the product of a total lack of understanding of business/ finance. RBS is also not a portfolio and I suspect we could all grow a lot older, or die in the process of waiting for RBS to turn a profit.Dair said:
If the nation is competent enough to manage a significant holding of debt, it must surely be competent enough to manage a portfolio of assets.TheWhiteRabbit said:
The government is not an investment company. It does not hold stakes in businesses simply in the belief that they'll produce a return. Not even Jeremy Corbyn wants that. Nor is there any indication that RBS shares will rise particularly - but hopefully they will as a result of the government playing its only remaining card: implanting the idea that starting to sell RBS implies confidence in its business.EPG said:Evening
I note the letters "RBS" did not appear here today. What on earth is Britain doing selling bank shares into a low interest rate environment after a sovereign debt crisis?
The only decision which Osborne should be making is "how do I get the best return for the public purse". That's clearly not how he is making the decision. It is either being done purely on an ideological basis or on a basis of rewarding his friends in the typical way of high level British state corruption.0 -
I lived through it.Charles said:
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White HouseThe_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
"That giant sucking sound....."0 -
The point I would make is that some of these societal changes are absolutely enormous. I suspect you are on the younger side for this forum, I might think you should look up "The Benny Hill Show", "On The Buses", The Carry On Films, The Confessions Films. These were before my time but the first free were still being repeated in the 80s and 90s and even the noughties on DAYTIME television (actually I think Benny Hill was still being made into the 90s).The_Apocalypse said:On women wanting to be objectified - again, I did address this in my previous post. That although there has been much societal change over the last couple of decades, women are not yet equal. There are still gender roles, and there are still double-standards in regard to the sexes. And despite the changes in women's role, women predominantly in the media are celebrated for their sexual appeal to men, as opposed to their actual achievements. This comes back to my previous post - that if we believe that women want to be objectified, then of course they do: society tells women its one of their main, if not main value. Everyone wants to feel valued.
The mainstream media making no progress is the key. While feminists and the liberal media may have - to a degree put the idea of sexual objectification theory into public consciousness, it's not affected that much of the media - movies, music, newspapers, magazines, etc do still, to a large degree objectify women. The attitudes of those with power in the media hasn't changed.
The level of objectification is obscene and almost always linked with blatant mysogyny. The mysogyny has largely vanished in its entirety from the mainstream media, the objectification is absolutely minimal in direct comparison to the 70s. Yet, the level and prevalence of female identification with BDSM, Rape Fantasy and other sexual choices closely identified with objectification seems utterly unchanged. Hence, there appears to be no correlation between reduction in mysogyny and objectification in the media and the choices women make. If your argument was correct, there would have been reduced prevalence.0 -
True - except that Hester (who I don't like, FWIW) waived his contractual bonus after a public media campaign whipped up by the ChancellorReggieCide said:
Interesting point. There is a lot of "nod and a wink" pressure from any powerful shareholder of any company. Osborne could be quite open 'cos, how many are going to naysay a pay cut for a banker?Charles said:
To wit: not paying Stephen Hester market rates and ultimately pushing him out. The latter possibly the right of a shareholder; the former possibly not.0 -
That's the traditional wisdom, which I repeated as part of "the story". But the numbers do suggest that although they helped Clinton, they probably weren't determinative.Charles said:
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White HouseThe_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
Looks like he split the Republican vote.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.The_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.0 -
Thanks. It's a closed fracture, thankfully small. Hurts like **** though. All down to my own stupidity.Toms said:
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise.JosiasJessop said:A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
My famkly have been wonderful - my dad and sis drove for 11 hours to pick me and the car up and take me to hospital. I'm an independent sort of fellow, so it feels embarrassing to rely on tbem, but i hope i'd do the same for them. Now recuperating at my parent's house before Mrs J & the young 'un arrive back from holiday.
I've had the pleasure to meet many current & ex railway workers in the past. Sadly I don't k ow do many atm though.0 -
Mark Reckless on Newsnight talking about the Hungary Fence.0
-
As I say, it's certainly the received wisdom. But like all good stories, it probably isn't true.The_Apocalypse said:
Looks like he split the Republican vote.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.The_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
Trump, on the other hand, would really split the vote...0 -
Even Norway could be in trouble if the oil price drops much further:
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
http://www.norwaypost.com/index.php/business/general-business/304410 -
Clinton only got 43% of the vote vs 37% for BushTheWhiteRabbit said:
That's the traditional wisdom, which I repeated as part of "the story". But the numbers do suggest that although they helped Clinton, they probably weren't determinative.Charles said:
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White HouseThe_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
I haven't seen data on second prefs for Perot supports, but I'd assume that a maverick, right wing, capitalist would be more likely to win support from, ooooh, shall we say Republicans or Democrats?
0 -
Tunisia blaming UK bombing of Libya for spread of ISIS terror
https://twitter.com/amolrajan/status/6290302076981166080 -
I disagree that objectification has reduced, as you argue. More explicit music videos, increased access hardcore porn, page 3, DM sidebar of shame. Even the way cameras are panin nearly every movie, TV show on women is essentially designed for the male gaze. In newspapers and magazines, most images of women have been sexualized to some degree or another. So yes, I'd argue there a correlation between objectification and the choices women make. Even rape fantasty isn't something most women want; and for the 25% - 40% who do, the fantasies are not common or frequent. In fact, an awful lot of these rape fantasies seem to lead to eventually the woman wanting to have sex - in contrast to much of the rape fantasies in online porn I've seen where this isn't the case at all.Dair said:
The point I would make is that some of these societal changes are absolutely enormous. I suspect you are on the younger side for this forum, I might think you should look up "The Benny Hill Show", "On The Buses", The Carry On Films, The Confessions Films. These were before my time but the first free were still being repeated in the 80s and 90s and even the noughties on DAYTIME television (actually I think Benny Hill was still being made into the 90s).
The level of objectification is obscene and almost always linked with blatant mysogyny. The mysogyny has largely vanished in its entirety from the mainstream media, the objectification is absolutely minimal in direct comparison to the 70s. Yet, the level and prevalence of female identification with BDSM, Rape Fantasy and other sexual choices closely identified with objectification seems utterly unchanged. Hence, there appears to be no correlation between reduction in mysogyny and objectification in the media and the choices women make. If your argument was correct, there would have been reduced prevalence.0 -
Speedy said:
What would have happened if Perot actually ran in the republican primaries in 92, I wonder.HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
He may well have done quite well. the populist Pat Buchanan ran Bush Snr a close second in New Hampshire's primary that yearSpeedy said:
What would have happened if Perot actually ran in the republican primaries in 92, I wonder.HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
Bush would have lost in 1992 anyway, even without Perot.The_Apocalypse said:
Looks like he split the Republican vote.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.The_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".0 -
France's railways are still state owned I believejohn_zims said:@HYUFD
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.0 -
Arguable, most exit polls showed Perot's supporters would have split 50% Bush - 50% Clinton had Perot not been in the race and the rest would not have votedCharles said:
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White HouseThe_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html0 -
From the lips of Perot himselfTim_B said:
I lived through it.Charles said:
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White HouseThe_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
"That giant sucking sound....."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ7kn2-GEmM0 -
It's a bit not complicated than that: SNCF is, of course, owned by the state, as are most national railways. The rules that exist are poorly drafted, and seem to miss the point that wev live on an island. What they are designed to prohibit is the French government using their ownership of the tracks to cross subsidise a state push into Belgian railways (for example).john_zims said:@HYUFD
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.0 -
I suspect that Bush would have been toast.HYUFD said:Speedy said:
What would have happened if Perot actually ran in the republican primaries in 92, I wonder.HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
He may well have done quite well. the populist Pat Buchanan ran Bush Snr a close second in New Hampshire's primary that yearSpeedy said:
What would have happened if Perot actually ran in the republican primaries in 92, I wonder.HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
As I suspect today's version of Bush is going to become from today's version of Perot.0 -
No doubt it is just me but do those part time workers earning over £50000 a year for sitting at the front of a tube train but who are on strike yet again tonight not kill the argument for nationalisation of the railways stone cold irredeemably dead?
Does anyone believe for a moment they would be getting away with this nonsense if TFL was privately run?0 -
Wow.Speedy said:
Bush would have lost in 1992 anyway, even without Perot.The_Apocalypse said:
Looks like he split the Republican vote.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.The_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
There's something about that surname Bush.
Bush Snr sounds like he could rival Dubya in the 'worst president' stakes....0 -
Most of Britain's is too, though from foreign state owned companies.HYUFD said:
France's railways are still state owned I believejohn_zims said:@HYUFD
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.
In fact most companies that run the trains and the buses in Britain use the profits to subsidize their businesses back home.
I read a few years ago that a canadian bus company that runs the buses in Manchester increased the bus fares in Manchester in order to find the money to reduce them in Canada.0 -
No one can rival Bush W in that race.The_Apocalypse said:
Wow.Speedy said:
Bush would have lost in 1992 anyway, even without Perot.The_Apocalypse said:
Looks like he split the Republican vote.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.The_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
There's something about that surname Bush.
Bush Snr sounds like he could rival Dubya in the 'worst president' stakes....
Goodnight.
And I leave tonight with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZvrIiqLv7M
0 -
Again, I think your idea over how women are portrayed today compared to in the past is wrong.The_Apocalypse said:
I disagree that objectification has reduced, as you argue. More explicit music videos, increased access hardcore porn, page 3, DM sidebar of shame. Even the way cameras are panin nearly every movie, TV show on women is essentially designed for the male gaze. In newspapers and magazines, most images of women have been sexualized to some degree or another. So yes, I'd argue there a correlation between objectification and the choices women make. Even rape fantasty isn't something most women want; and for the 25% - 40% who do, the fantasies are not common or frequent. In fact, an awful lot of these rape fantasies seem to lead to eventually the woman wanting to have sex - in contrast to much of the rape fantasies in online porn I've seen where this isn't the case at all.
There is absolutely NOTHING in a modern Rap video that is not comparable with Rock videos from the 1980s. The level of objectification, lack of clothing, etc. are comparable.
You may not know this but in the 70s and 80s, page 3 included 16 year olds. Today, the Sun don't even run it most days.
Sidebar of Shame is nothing new. No huge differences in how movies are shot (although nudity is much, much less common), images of women appear no more sexualised today than 10 or 20 years ago.
On your last point perhaps you should consider. If the prevalent rape fantasies women actually have are different to the rape scenarios in available porn, perhaps you need to consider that it is the women's choice otherwise the scenario would not differ so markedly from the porn portrayal.
If your argument is true, then the fantasy should match the influence.0 -
I don't understand why Americans elected him not once, but twice. 2000 can be explained by Florida, but 2004? Then again it's a bit of a Sophie's choice in choosing between Kerry and Bush.Speedy said:No one can rival Bush W in that race.
0 -
Tessa Jowell said on the Sky paper review that she thought Jeremy Corbyn was going to win. Slight drop in his price on Betfair as a result.0
-
You got it there about the Kerry effect in 2004, the democrats choose their version of Mitt Romney and predictably they lost.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't understand why Americans elected him not once, but twice. 2000 can be explained by Florida, but 2004? Then again it's a bit of a Sophie's choice in choosing between Kerry and Bush.Speedy said:No one can rival Bush W in that race.
Anyone could have beaten Bush in 2004, except the plank of wood that the democrats nominated.
You can say that is the main reason why everyone but Corbyn is losing the Labour leadership race, because so far Corbyn is the only candidate not being a plank of wood.
Goodnight.0 -
Today's Times reports that Cooper is on holiday in USA with hubby, Burnhanm on holiday in Spain and Kendal on holiday with family.
Corbyn continues on the hustings.
Mmmmmm.....0 -
On rape fantasies, I don't think it's online porn that influences them (after all, I suspect most women don't actively view online porn). I think sexual double standards do - therefore women have fantasies of being 'taken'.Dair said:
Again, I think your idea over how women are portrayed today compared to in the past is wrong.The_Apocalypse said:
I disagree that objectification has reduced, as you argue. More explicit music videos, increased access hardcore porn, page 3, DM sidebar of shame. Even the way cameras are panin nearly every movie, TV show on women is essentially designed for the male gaze. In newspapers and magazines, most images of women have been sexualized to some degree or another. So yes, I'd argue there a correlation between objectification and the choices women make. Even rape fantasty isn't something most women want; and for the 25% - 40% who do, the fantasies are not common or frequent. In fact, an awful lot of these rape fantasies seem to lead to eventually the woman wanting to have sex - in contrast to much of the rape fantasies in online porn I've seen where this isn't the case at all.
There is absolutely NOTHING in a modern Rap video that is not comparable with Rock videos from the 1980s. The level of objectification, lack of clothing, etc. are comparable.
You may not know this but in the 70s and 80s, page included 16 year olds. Today, the Sun don't even run it most days.
Sidebar of Shame is nothing new. No huge differences in how movies are shot (although nudity is much, much less common), images of women appear no more sexualised today than 10 or 20 years ago.
On your last point perhaps you should consider. If the prevalent rape fantasies women actually have are different to the rape scenarios in available porn, perhaps you need to consider that it is the women's choice otherwise the scenario would not differ so markedly from the porn portrayal.
If your argument is true, then the fantasy should match the influence.
As for your other points r.e. rap videos, sidebar of shame, images of women and movies - I'm not arguing that these have dramatically changed in twenty years. I'm saying objectification in the media is still predominate; it just comes in a different format. The whole rap video comparison to rock videos would demonstrate that - although these days objectification is pretty prevalent in pop and dance music videos too. It's genreless, you could say.
On The Sun - as far as I was aware, they were running it as they usually do - especially after the saga earlier this year over it. And although 16 year olds don't feature in page 3, teenage girls are still sexualised considerably - the whole 'naughty school-girl thing' anyone. Britney Spears cashed on on this in the late 1990s.0 -
Disagree, Bush Snr was an OK President in my book. He won the Gulf War with an international Coalition, saw a peaceful end to the Cold War and Soviet Union and raised taxes on the rich to close the deficit and really was a genuine centrist unlike what passes for most of the GOP today. Like John Major he also offered a calmer, more moderate contrast to his more rightwing predecessorThe_Apocalypse said:
Wow.Speedy said:
Bush would have lost in 1992 anyway, even without Perot.The_Apocalypse said:
Looks like he split the Republican vote.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.The_Apocalypse said:
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...The_Apocalypse said:
I've probably made you feel old againTheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes(!)The_Apocalypse said:
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?HYUFD said:
Memories of Perot indeedThe_Apocalypse said:
LOL, Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing!HYUFD said:
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
There's something about that surname Bush.
Bush Snr sounds like he could rival Dubya in the 'worst president' stakes....0 -
OK, Corbyn is the only one who is seriously campaigning up till now, but now he's the only one actually campaigning.Moses_ said:Today's Times reports that Cooper is on holiday in USA with hubby, Burnhanm on holiday in Spain and Kendal on holiday with family.
Corbyn continues on the hustings.
Mmmmmm.....
We could all see the others having trashy campaigns but this is ridiculous, do they even care about winning the Labour Leadership or have they just given up?0 -
Bush won because the nation was at war and he was a very good campaigner who mobilised his base. Dean would have been defeated by an even larger margin than Kerry and Edwards, as we now know, was a scandal in the makingSpeedy said:
You got it there about the Kerry effect in 2004, the democrats choose their version of Mitt Romney and predictably they lost.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't understand why Americans elected him not once, but twice. 2000 can be explained by Florida, but 2004? Then again it's a bit of a Sophie's choice in choosing between Kerry and Bush.Speedy said:No one can rival Bush W in that race.
Anyone could have beaten Bush in 2004, except the plank of wood that the democrats nominated.
You can say that is the main reason why everyone but Corbyn is losing the Labour leadership race, because so far Corbyn is the only candidate not being a plank of wood.
Goodnight.0 -
Spread betting market
Number of mixed race 20 yr old female posters on here
0-0.50 -
Virgin is not, as well as some othersSpeedy said:
Most of Britain's is too, though from foreign state owned companies.HYUFD said:
France's railways are still state owned I believejohn_zims said:@HYUFD
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.
In fact most companies that run the trains and the buses in Britain use the profits to subsidize their businesses back home.
I read a few years ago that a canadian bus company that runs the buses in Manchester increased the bus fares in Manchester in order to find the money to reduce them in Canada.0 -
Interesting sting Newsnight interview with the fragrant French Ambassadatrix laughing at the suggestion and just saying 'I know naarthing - ask someone else.'Cyclefree said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11785101/Calais-migrants-British-anarchists-infiltrate-camps-to-provoke-trouble-police-warn.html
Question for the French: why the hell aren't you arresting and charging them then?
No thought of asking her government and supplying some answers.
I wonder if we need a deal with Zebrugge and just close the tunnel when the French whoeveritisthismonth go on strike, and simply close the tunnel for the duration.
Eurotunnel is a French company, isn't it?0 -
I don't understand what you mean with your first point on double standards.The_Apocalypse said:On rape fantasies, I don't think it's online porn that influences them (after all, I suspect most women don't actively view online porn). I think sexual double standards do - therefore women have fantasies of being 'taken'.
As for your other points r.e. rap videos, sidebar of shame, images of women and movies - I'm not arguing that these have dramatically changed in twenty years. I'm saying objectification in the media is still predominate; it just comes in a different format. The whole rap video comparison to rock videos would demonstrate that - although these days objectification is pretty prevalent in pop and dance music videos too. It's genreless, you could say.
On The Sun - as far as I was aware, they were running it as they usually do - especially after the saga earlier this year over it. And although 16 year olds don't feature in page 3, teenage girls are still sexualised considerably - the whole 'naughty school-girl thing' anyone. Britney Spears cashed on on this in the late 1990s.
I'm happy to accept that the objectification in some aspects of the mainstream media is similar today as to the past. However, it is not true of all aspects and in many, many ways the environment today is completely different and much less mysogynistic and objectifying.
The thirds point makes this most clear. Yes there is an implied teenage fantasy in Britney Spears early stuff. But it is implied. In the past this was actually stated. IIRC from reruns of Please Sir! it was filled with jokes about schoolgirls banging older men including teachers. IIRC in the original black and white St Trinians movies they girls ran a brothel. The mainstream media didn't imply teenage fantasies. They were explicitly stated.0 -
0
-
I would go for over 0.5 :-)isam said:Spread betting market
Number of mixed race 20 yr old female posters on here
0-0.5
Off Topic:
Wow, Saudis heading towards 20% deficit. Makes Syrizia or Corbyn seem positively abstemious. There looks to be a very large turd airborne towards that fan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html0 -
I thought for a second there you thought his price ha worsened as a result!Tissue_Price said:Tessa Jowell said on the Sky paper review that she thought Jeremy Corbyn was going to win. Slight drop in his price on Betfair as a result.
0 -
Quite. If you looked at the consequences of privatisation of railways, not only was the policy a success in its own right, an evidence based approach would say it must rank in one of the most successful government policies of the last seventy years. It isnt just passenger numbers, its rolling stock, passenger safety, incidents etc.TCPoliticalBetting said:
wow. The best advert for privatisation.notme said:
The most important graph you will ever see about railway usage.Toms said:
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise.JosiasJessop said:A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.
The whole context of the railways is seen in a different attitude. Instead of scrapping over an ever reducing service, 'managed decline', the biggest problem we have now is capacity. Too many people wanting to use it!!0 -
For those of you watching the debate tomorrow, left to right on the stage the order is Christie, Rubio, Carson, Walker, Trump, Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, Paul and Kasich.
It's being held at the Quicken Loans Arena, home of Lebron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Megyn Kelly, one of the moderators (along with Brett Baier and Chris Wallace), is being frequently teased by everyone (not least Mike Huckabee) for introducing Huckabee on her show recently pronouncing his name with an F instead of an H. It was a funny moment.0 -
Same priceThe_Apocalypse said:0 -
Anyone going to Trent Bridge tomorrow?0
-
If only Beeching foresaw that!notme said:
Quite. If you looked at the consequences of privatisation of railways, not only was the policy a success in its own right, an evidence based approach would say it must rank in one of the most successful government policies of the last seventy years. It isnt just passenger numbers, its rolling stock, passenger safety, incidents etc.TCPoliticalBetting said:
wow. The best advert for privatisation.notme said:
The most important graph you will ever see about railway usage.Toms said:
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise.JosiasJessop said:A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.
The whole context of the railways is seen in a different attitude. Instead of scrapping over an ever reducing service, 'managed decline', the biggest problem we have now is capacity. Too many people wanting to use it!!0 -
by "mixed race 20 yr old female posters" do you mean Cheshire farmers?isam said:Spread betting market
Number of mixed race 20 yr old female posters on here
0-0.50 -
Latest bit of new rail route for me: over the weekend, did Peterborough to Cambridge and back0
-
Just to clarify even more, Osborne's real motivation is "how do I get the best quick return to balance the books as soon as possible, and so boost the chances of my election as next Tory Leader?"ReggieCide said:Just to clarify, Osborne's motivation is "how do I get the best return for the public purse"?
0 -
Coincidental that is the same for ukip mps come 2020... surelyisam said:Spread betting market
Number of mixed race 20 yr old female posters on here
0-0.50 -
Methinks that Burnham’s nationalise the railways plan could come back to have haunt him
Quite possibly true but could we just say "I think" ?0 -
An interesting debate, if I may butt in.Dair said:
Again, I think your idea over how women are portrayed today compared to in the past is wrong.The_Apocalypse said:
I disagree that objectification has reduced, as you argue. More explicit music videos, increased access hardcore porn, page 3, DM sidebar of shame. Even the way cameras are panin nearly every movie, TV show on women is essentially designed for the male gaze. In newspapers and magazines, most images of women have been sexualized to some degree or another. So yes, I'd argue there a correlation between objectification and the choices women make. Even rape fantasty isn't something most women want; and for the 25% - 40% who do, the fantasies are not common or frequent. In fact, an awful lot of these rape fantasies seem to lead to eventually the woman wanting to have sex - in contrast to much of the rape fantasies in online porn I've seen where this isn't the case at all.
There is absolutely NOTHING in a modern Rap video that is not comparable with Rock videos from the 1980s. The level of objectification, lack of clothing, etc. are comparable.
You may not know this but in the 70s and 80s, page 3 included 16 year olds. Today, the Sun don't even run it most days.
Sidebar of Shame is nothing new. No huge differences in how movies are shot (although nudity is much, much less common), images of women appear no more sexualised today than 10 or 20 years ago.
On your last point perhaps you should consider. If the prevalent rape fantasies women actually have are different to the rape scenarios in available porn, perhaps you need to consider that it is the women's choice otherwise the scenario would not differ so markedly from the porn portrayal.
If your argument is true, then the fantasy should match the influence.
I think societal changes may lag media changes, attitudes will be stronlgly influenced in childhood, less so later on.
Also re your last point, it should "rape fantasies in pron watched by women" not "available pron" to make a proper comparison. Cheers!0 -
Bush I was not corrupt. Other than the fact he lost, he wasn't really unpopular either.Speedy said:The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
But the point I wish to address is Presidential depiction in the movies. There may be specific parodies of Bush 1 but "Clear and Present Danger" isn't really one of them. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish specific homages from just a general perception of what presidents look like. We know that some of them are specific (Monckton/Anderson in "Washington: Behind Closed Doors" are necessarily Nixon/LBJ, the Stantons in "Primary Colors" are necessarily Billary) but sometimes it may just be a lack of imagination. Is Kevin Kline in "Dave" a pastiche of Bush 1 or just a generalised President? Andrew Shepherd in "The American President" is presumably a romanticised Clinton, but is Bartlet in "The West Wing"? Allison Taylor in 24 is presumably a Hillary manque, but David Palmer isn't Obama (the timing's wrong). And so on...
Although you could make the case that the President in the book C&PD is Bush 1 (the times match up if you assume the POD is the 92 election, with Fowler/Durling/Ryan replacing Clinton/Clinton/Bush 2, making Ryan President during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, matching the events in "Rainbow Six"), but I don't think it's specifically him in the movie version, I think it's just a nonspecific President.0 -
A couple of further questions from the WMUR Granite State poll of NH Democratic voters I mentioned earlier -
Which Democratic candidate best represents the values of Democrats?
Sanders 43%
Clinton 34%
Which Democratic candidate do you think is least honest?
Clinton 31%
Sanders 3%
Again this is before either the federal judge's order about her email or the FBI investigating her server security was known.
In other bad news, the WSJ today reported that the Clintons donated about $15 million to charity between 2007-2014. Except for $200k it all went to the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation pays travel and other expenses for the Clinton family and gives them a forum to promote public policy, although it has done some good work in - for example - combating world hunger.
The $15 million is written off their taxes.
There is nothing illegal here. But the optics aren't good.
Neither is FBI involvement.0 -
Surely OGH is allowed the occasional Shakespearean allusion...'protests too much'?HortenceWithering said:Methinks that Burnham’s nationalise the railways plan could come back to have haunt him
Quite possibly true but could we just say "I think" ?0 -
Christmas has come early for the Mail - two bogey men in the same bed!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186430/I-deal-SNP-power-Left-wing-leadership-candidate-says-work-party-2020-election-day-day-basis.html0 -
As Mr T might say, "Methinks Burnham is FOOL!"
0 -
Good effort. You did however overlook Hollywood's predictive powers, when a full four years before George W Bush was elected it had a former air force pilot becoming President.viewcode said:
Bush I was not corrupt. Other than the fact he lost, he wasn't really unpopular either.Speedy said:The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
But the point I wish to address is Presidential depiction in the movies. There may be specific parodies of Bush 1 but "Clear and Present Danger" isn't really one of them. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish specific homages from just a general perception of what presidents look like. We know that some of them are specific (Monckton/Anderson in "Washington: Behind Closed Doors" are necessarily Nixon/LBJ, the Stantons in "Primary Colors" are necessarily Billary) but sometimes it may just be a lack of imagination. Is Kevin Kline in "Dave" a pastiche of Bush 1 or just a generalised President? Andrew Shepherd in "The American President" is presumably a romanticised Clinton, but is Bartlet in "The West Wing"? Allison Taylor in 24 is presumably a Hillary manque, but David Palmer isn't Obama (the timing's wrong). And so on...
Although you could make the case that the President in the book C&PD is Bush 1 (the times match up if you assume the POD is the 92 election, with Fowler/Durling/Ryan replacing Clinton/Clinton/Bush 2, making Ryan President during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, matching the events in "Rainbow Six"), but I don't think it's specifically him in the movie version, I think it's just a nonspecific President.
Who then overcomes a great oppressing alien force with a band of pilots who gain ultimate success against the structures looming over US cites by crashing into one of them in a suicide mission...er, hang on, that's gone horribly wrong.....0 -
Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh
Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-337972550 -
Philanthropy is great - those that have earned a great deal of money during their careers should be free to do with it what they wish. But I do think people should do it after they've left the arena in which they've earned their money.Tim_B said:In other bad news, the WSJ today reported that the Clintons donated about $15 million to charity between 2007-2014. Except for $200k it all went to the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation pays travel and other expenses for the Clinton family and gives them a forum to promote public policy, although it has done some good work in - for example - combating world hunger.
The $15 million is written off their taxes.
There is nothing illegal here. But the optics aren't good.
Neither is FBI involvement.0 -
What does "come back to have haunt" mean??CarlottaVance said:
Surely OGH is allowed the occasional Shakespearean allusion...'protests too much'?HortenceWithering said:Methinks that Burnham’s nationalise the railways plan could come back to have haunt him
Quite possibly true but could we just say "I think" ?0 -
I KNEW OGH was a Cumberb*tch admirer of Mr Cumberbatch....(just opened in Hamlet...)Sunil_Prasannan said:
What does "come back to have haunt" mean??CarlottaVance said:
Surely OGH is allowed the occasional Shakespearean allusion...'protests too much'?HortenceWithering said:Methinks that Burnham’s nationalise the railways plan could come back to have haunt him
Quite possibly true but could we just say "I think" ?0 -
The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones:viewcode said:
Bush I was not corrupt. Other than the fact he lost, he wasn't really unpopular either.Speedy said:The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
But the point I wish to address is Presidential depiction in the movies. There may be specific parodies of Bush 1 but "Clear and Present Danger" isn't really one of them. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish specific homages from just a general perception of what presidents look like. We know that some of them are specific (Monckton/Anderson in "Washington: Behind Closed Doors" are necessarily Nixon/LBJ, the Stantons in "Primary Colors" are necessarily Billary) but sometimes it may just be a lack of imagination. Is Kevin Kline in "Dave" a pastiche of Bush 1 or just a generalised President? Andrew Shepherd in "The American President" is presumably a romanticised Clinton, but is Bartlet in "The West Wing"? Allison Taylor in 24 is presumably a Hillary manque, but David Palmer isn't Obama (the timing's wrong). And so on...
Although you could make the case that the President in the book C&PD is Bush 1 (the times match up if you assume the POD is the 92 election, with Fowler/Durling/Ryan replacing Clinton/Clinton/Bush 2, making Ryan President during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, matching the events in "Rainbow Six"), but I don't think it's specifically him in the movie version, I think it's just a nonspecific President.
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/07/5_reasons_george_w_bush_is_still_one_of_the_worst_presidents_ever_partner/
Interesting alternative view to the revisionist one being pushed by the GOP.0 -
Either that, or she wants to represent a constituency nearer both her place of birth, education and home?Dair said:Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh
Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255
0 -
Jeremy Corbyn = Cockney Rebel
Burnham = trying to Make Him Smile0 -
The Joker comes up with a novel way to choose the next Labour Leader!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC3LefUmH5g0
