Lurker > Donomark

Balrog0 posted...

Antifar posted...

Clicked link, laughed out loud when I saw Peggy Noonan wrote it. But at any rate, the idea that a left calling for universal healthcare is "loveless" and "running on rage," while Trump backers gleefully awaiting mass deportations are a "spirited, confident core," is a bit too much to swallow.

I don't care about that, but the argument just seems wrong. Politics is all about being angry, especially these days. It does work.

To say that rage doesn't work is just idiotic. The entire last presidential race was all about rage at the establishment. What the hell is she smoking?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Skye Reynolds posted...

Donomark posted...

[150 character limit image link]

And the one on the left came up with the concept. Like I said, don't raise somebody else's kid. In a literal sense, a step parent could be everything a biological parent failed to be. In a metaphorical sense pertaining to intellectual properties, you don't put your best effort into a story that you do not own.

I can't say that Universal owns Frankenstein because they created a better monster than Mary Shelley did or that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles should always be the marketable 1980s cartoon show rather than the divisive gritty comic. Nor would it be right to say that Donkey Kong, as in the arcade game, shouldn't be allowed an update of some sort because the original D.K. is now Cranky Kong in current continuity.

You can always return to those earlier interpretations. It might not be the best for those stories, but you really can never honestly say that the second, third, or fourth incarnation of a character is the only interpretation. (It might be to you. But that won't stop others from potentially returning to square one at some point.)

I agree with what you're saying here. The only issue I have is when people mischaracterize that earlier history to justify something divisive. I'm not saying that Batman killing is entirely without basis. In my experience on this subject, people tend to overstate the frequency and breadth that constituted that depiction.

On a side note, I wonder whether this issue was even one of interest to Burton. If I recall, Daniel Waters wrote Batman killing because he felt that it was inconvenient to write Batman tying the villains up. It wouldn't substantively change the points that we've been discussing, but I do think that it's amusing that we may be putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Skye Reynolds posted...

My response to that is don't raise somebody else's kid.

Bob Kane's original idea for Batman was more or less Zorro with bat wings. Bill Finger turned him into the Shadow in a bat mask. And you know what? Bob Kane was still the one who created the concept of that character. It's still his brainchild.

Eh, not really. Yes, what you mentioned with respect to the design of the character is literally true in some respect (although I would classify Finger's design as certainly more distinctve than "the Shadow in a bat mask"), it's also somewhat misleading to say that the person who designed this:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--CmMTFdR7--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/19dfys1yex2wxjpg.jpg

deserves credit for "creating" the concept of this:

https://d3nvbf5pqk2vjh.cloudfront.net/cgccomics/monthly_2017_05/dup_the_creation_of_vintage_batman_by_paulromanmartinez.jpg.15c765f033c8f068a8a03265f6cc1dbb.jpg

Almost everything every generation associates with the iconography of Batman is not attributable to Bob Kane.

I realize that I'm probably just arguing semantics here.

But, that's really beside the point.

However a character's popular image may have evolved over the years, it should never be taboo to do an adaptation of the original version of that character. That's not to say the first version is always the best, or that you have to like it, but it's not as if someone should be locked into only presenting the current incarnation of a character or story."

You're 100% right about that. My only problem (which I don't want to unfairly attribute to you) is that people who tend to bring up the 'but Batman killed a few villains in three issues fifty years ago' to argue that Burton ignoring Batman's code is valid, tend to slip into arguing that Batman's no killing rule either 1) hasn't been well established in the comics, 2) Batman's killing is substantially representative of the character's history in the comics or 3) Batman killing is not largely inconsistent with the character's history. All of which are untrue. Batman killing is really a relic at the margins of the character's earliest history and is inconsistent with the character that's been subsequently developed throughout the majority of his run. With that in mind, people can run with whatever they want (Batman can kill and kill and kill), as long as they don't misrepresent history in order to justify an interpretation. That's all.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Not really. I think he doesn't respond to Eminem because

1) He knows he won't win.

2) Part of the reason he wouldn't win is because he knows that Em can hit below the belt and (even in his trashy presidency), Trump can't publically go as far as Eminem has license to.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Skye Reynolds posted...

Kelystic posted...

but his batman kills

So did Bob Kane's. The guy who created Batman and acted as a consultant on the Tim Burton movies.

Okay, well, the character that's existed for the majority of the past 70+ years that people care about doesn't kill. The character evolved. Further, I wouldn't consider Bob Kane to be an authority on Batman. He's a known liar who is not responsible for almost everything recognizable and attributable to the Batman brand. There's probably at least a dozen writers and artists who are more responsible for the contemporary vision of Batman than Bob Kane.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Yeah, it was classless. I'd care a lot more about the complaints if it didn't come from people who voted for "Mr. Grab Em' By the *****" and other classy sayings.

If anything, he's like your leader.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

0TiamaT0 posted...

Freddie_Mercury posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Anything can be considered racist these days, if youre a big enough crybaby...

*proceeds to cry over a hypothetical*

I bet thats a typical reaction to someone daring to disagree with you.

Its a fact. People love to nail themselves to a proverbial cross, just to bask in their victim status.

Yeah, including victims of the "everything is racist," gang, m i right?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Questionmarktarius posted...

Axiom posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

source, please.

https://www.snopes.com/peanut-butter-jelly-racist/

o...kay.
That was weird.

...Does this mean that the War on Christmas isn't real, either?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

3khc posted...

Donomark posted...

Given the optics of seemingly protesting the flag, the target of his protest was a poor tactical choice. If you notice, all anyone seems to talk about is whether it's disrespectful or not. He should have anticipated that. It's obscured his message. People hold the flag and anthem in a very special and sensitive regard. Perhaps I could be persuaded otherwise, but it doesn't look like this form of protest was necessarily well thought out.

You realize how horrible it is to have rules for protest right. That's some dictator level shit.

If the rules were codified it would indeed be horrendous. That said, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that, from the perspective of implementing tactics for a movement, this generates too much poor PR and obscures its intended message. During the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King was very disciplined and focused with respect to how he came off and how protests were communicated to the public. I think he demonstrated savvy that Kaepernick lacks and could learn from.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Conceivably, he could've protested in a way that would've engendered sympathy instead of offense.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Given the optics of seemingly protesting the flag, the target of his protest was a poor tactical choice. If you notice, all anyone seems to talk about is whether it's disrespectful or not. He should have anticipated that. It's obscured his message. People hold the flag and anthem in a very special and sensitive regard. Perhaps I could be persuaded otherwise, but it doesn't look like this form of protest was necessarily well thought out.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Sadly, this stuff is getting to the point of self-parody.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

That's funny. I still play the GBA today, and have been doing so since 2002.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

GregShmedley posted...

DezCaughtIt posted...

...It's almost like you don't see the obvious pattern of attacking prominent black men to rally his base

It's almost like you are ignoring that he attacks more white people than he does black people...on the regular.

Donomark posted...

GregShmedley posted...

DezCaughtIt posted...

GregShmedley posted...

Bluebomber182 posted...

theres some truth to it. after charlottesville many ceos in his manufacturing council quit. about 30 of em in fact. he only attacked 1 of them on twitter and it was the black guy @GregShmedley

That isn't example of there being truth to It. Trump is a childish asshole to everyone.

Well let's take a look at the athletes he's had beefs with that he instigated

None of them are white.
There is most definitely a pattern. Plenty of white athletes he could throw shade at (and coaches, see Kerr or Popovich), but he always goes for the Kaepernicks, the Currys, Lynches, and so on in his public tirades.

...it's almost like there is context that you are leaving out. Let's not forget the white people--mainly white politicians--he attacks on the regular.

So, because he attacks white people, when he attacks black people, he can't possibly have any racist motivation behind it? That doesn't make any sense at all.

So because he attacks black people, it's ok to assume there is a racist motivation behind It? That doesn't make any sense at all.

It's like people are forgetting, again, the context behind his attacks. It wasn't like "hmmm, black athletes. Gotta attack them!!!"

Well, we know he has a history of discrimination, we know he championed a conspiracy to invalidate the first black president, we know white nationalists and culturally aggrieved white people are part of his fanbase, and we know he attacks black protestors more than he does white nationalist 'protestors'. You're making it seem like these are isolated incidents.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

GregShmedley posted...

DezCaughtIt posted...

GregShmedley posted...

Bluebomber182 posted...

theres some truth to it. after charlottesville many ceos in his manufacturing council quit. about 30 of em in fact. he only attacked 1 of them on twitter and it was the black guy @GregShmedley

That isn't example of there being truth to It. Trump is a childish asshole to everyone.

Well let's take a look at the athletes he's had beefs with that he instigated

None of them are white.
There is most definitely a pattern. Plenty of white athletes he could throw shade at (and coaches, see Kerr or Popovich), but he always goes for the Kaepernicks, the Currys, Lynches, and so on in his public tirades.

...it's almost like there is context that you are leaving out. Let's not forget the white people--mainly white politicians--he attacks on the regular.

So, because he attacks white people, when he attacks black people, he can't possibly have any racist motivation behind it? That doesn't make any sense at all.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Yeah, maybe it has to do with there finally being a blood connection. After they have a kid, they've got a common genetic relative.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

They spoke a foreign language, were poor, and practiced Catholicism.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

"why is it that you can understand one side's argument but not the others? just because you think one set of allegations is worse doesn't change the logic of the scenario, just your gut reaction to it.'

I now realize that we've probably been talking past each other. My point was that they are not moral equivalents, such that "The Franken letter writers are just as bad as people who want Moore elected despite allegations of rape, pedophilia, and intimidation," is wrong. We agree on that.

like a sitting senator groping one of his constituents is not NBD but from the way we're discussing it it sounds like it. what is an appropriate punishment for that if not resignation?

You know what, contrary to some of my posts, I've really only been thinking about this in light of there only being one accusation. I haven't had enough sleep, and forgot to factor in the second accusation. You're right, that is a big deal. I certainly understand him resigning over it.

"but only until we get to a certain level of arbitrarily defined ickiness or illegality? then defending the person IS defending the actions? I can't square that circle personally."

It's not about a tipping point for when "defending" a person becomes defending an action, it's about having a tolerance for misconduct and appreciating that the response to misconduct incorporates a matter of degree. See, my opinion changed when I remembered that there was a second accuser. Two is worse than one and obviously suggests a troubling pattern which would engender a more severe response.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Balrog0 posted...

I mean, I'm not trying to be argumentative just to argue. The post I was responding to was clarifying the argument of Franken's defenders, which wasn't that they were defending what he did, they were just defending the person (based on their personal interactions) and the policies he supports.

Unless you legit think people in Alabama are defending child pedophilia -- which, maybe they are in the same way these people are defending what Franken did -- I don't see why it's controversial to point out, hey, the other side is also not literally full of people defending awful sexual abuse.

See, when you just focus on the fact that there are allegations, and you ignore the substance of the allegations, you create false equivalencies. If Franken had been accused of statutory rape, pedophilia, intimidation and the rest, you would absolutely have a point. People do not regard grabbing someone's buttocks and a forced kiss as bad as rape. That matters, even if people would prefer to ignore that part of the analysis.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

I think in this instance they pretty much are, and actually Al Franken is incredibly lucky that both Roy Moore and Trump are out there to make his alleged malfescance look relatively harmless by comparison. Without those extenuating circumstances we would all be much more mad at him.

I think that there has to be an acknowledgment of degrees here. Currently, people seem to be saying, there is no matter of degree, everyone should leave if they're guilty of some sexual indiscretion. So, what's the level? If you've groped someone once, should you resign? The saying the punishment should fit the crime was ostensibly created to observe that there are degrees of wrongdoing, and that not all wrongdoing should be punished equally.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Balrog0 posted...

Donomark posted...

Yes, It's ok as long as they play for my team.

They're not saying that it's okay, they're saying that he shouldn't resign over it. That is not the same thing as condoning it. Disagree all you want, but disagree with their actual position.

same as saying you would vote for a pedophile over a democrat, I agree. It doesn't condone the behavior, it just signals you prefer one set of policies to another set of policies

Stop it. Those are not even remotely the same thing. Look, it's cool to attempt to guard against bias, but this "It's always the same thing both sides!" is a perfect example of false equivalence.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

When the rhetoric of their political party literally includes advancing women's rights that's exactly the opposite of not condemning a person who's been caught sexually assaulting a woman. So yes them not saying he should resign is exactly the same thing as them saying it's OK.

No. You're not making an argument. You're just stating a conclusion. Explain why censure without demanding resignation is inconsistent with women's rights advocacy. I'm curious as to where you're coming from. Hell, even the first accuser herself doesn't want him to step down. In your mind, the victim, who disagrees with what you're advocating, is delusional, right?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Yes, It's ok as long as they play for my team.

They're not saying that it's okay, they're saying that he shouldn't resign over it. That is not the same thing as condoning it. Disagree all you want, but disagree with their actual position.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

"It's utterly absurd to take what he said there literally."

Absolutely delusional. It's not absurd at all when you have over a dozen women saying "Yes, he did that to me."

Of course, I'm sure that if it's against Trump, all charges are political opportunism.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

"If you haven't seen the movie, don't talk."

Fair enough. I have seen neither Wonder Woman nor Justice League. In my full acknowledgement of my firsthand ignorance, I credit the fact that you undoubtedly have a more informed perspective with which to comment on both films.

Partly in light of that fact, I'm not going to argue. However, if you're interested, I did find an article that argues a line that you might object to.

http://screencrush.com/justice-league-wonder-woman-problems/

The author acknowledges the very point that you made, "[m]uch attention has already been paid to the Amazon warrior costumes in Justice League, which feature a surprising amount of bare midriffs, but in all fairness, their training outfits in Wonder Woman werent all that different." However, in the end, she has issues with the way Wonder Woman is portrayed. You may find it persuasive or enlightening, or not.

Cheers.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

A race of three-eyed people? Hmm. This is complete news to me. I always thought that Tien was just a literal version of the enlightened third eye metaphor.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

JxOxNxIxCxS posted...

I always thought that wonder woman only got good reviews because reviewers were scared of the backlashes from feminists

?

Apparently, reviewers acknowledged that Catwoman and Elektra sucked and there was no feminist backlash.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

It still looks skimpy and stupid. What would they have that much skin exposed?

"When I march into battle facing dozens of sharpened steel blades, I know I want my torso exposed..."
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

In promoting the film, in response to a question regarding the scope of Whedon's involvement in the reshoots, one of the actors mentioned "It's still Zack's film," as if that were an attractive, exciting or reassuring prospect.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Zodd3224 posted...

MikeArmstrong posted...

I'm going to skip it 100%. Snyder has had more than enough chances to make a good movie.

I felt the same way. He's a hack. Only DC movie I have enjoyed so far was Wonder Woman. Only reason I went is my DC fanboi buddy bought me a ticket.

I was pleasantly surprised. It was dumb. And still has Snyder's stink on it. But it was fun in an Avengers sort of way.

I have zero interest in it because I have little to no faith in a Zack Snyder product with these characters.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

This looks like it's taking itself too seriously. The games were goofy. Remember Ruby and Boris?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

AlternativeFAQS posted...

Donomark posted...

This is all well and good. Franken should resign. That said, how on Earth can anyone on the right ask Franken to step down and not ask the President to do the same?

idk why is turtle asking moore to step down and not trump?

Turtle wants to trigger a special election in order to run a different candidate. As of now, it's too late to remove Moore from the ballot.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

This is all well and good. Franken should resign. That said, how on Earth can anyone on the right ask Franken to step down and not ask the President to do the same?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Why do these always seem like they've been written by someone for whom English is a second language?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Tropicalwood posted...

CiIantro posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

Dude, you can't play someone off as having 30 years experience and base that time off of when she got her degree in law. Reality is that she was either a pencil pusher for a judge or Bill's house pet and later just some piece of garbage left at Harvard to spew crappy opinions to the heavily susceptible minds of spoiled rich kids.

LOL you are so full of crap.

Early career
Kagan was a law clerk for Judge Abner J. Mikva of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1987 and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

You're full of shit, she was a pencil pusher for some judges and went back to school to teach those with no experience while having little experience.
Kagan joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School as an assistant professor in 1991 and became a tenured professor of law in 1995
Then of course Bill Clinton appointed her to some position and she then went to teach at a university again.

It's like having an old medic from Nam replace your heart despite doing nothing of the such in the past 40 years, and then you say he has 45 years of experience.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I bet you don't even know what a clerk does. What you call a 'pencil pusher' is one of the most highly competitive, coveted and distinguished professional experiences in the entire American legal system. She researched and wrote judicial opinions and bench memos for the highest court on the federal judiciary. Her drafts were edited by Justice Marshall for inclusion in the United States Reports.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Yeah, that's not the encounter that's being described as pedophilic. It's the encounter with the 14-year-old.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Tropicalwood posted...

CiIantro posted...

She also had more than 30 years experience in law. This dude has 3.

As a professor at some cushy ivy league school.

Stop. She was a clerk on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court (for Thurgood Marshall), served as White House Counsel, and was the Solicitor General.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

I absolutely agree with you when it comes to the standard of the government. When it comes to the people and the public, I can't say that I've found any of the people's judgements particularly troubling or even necessarily generally unfounded. In almost every instance (that comes to mind), the reason to believe guilt has been better than the scenario you painted, (i.e. one allegation of guilt = inevitable social pariah status and doom). You're worried that people will be sullied. That's what we have defamation claims for.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Eagleeyejack posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Eagleeyejack posted...

That is just my point, having an opinion is one thing but these men are being presumed guilty and in almost every recent case there has been zero evidence, just a accusation.

Accusations are evidence.

They aren't sufficient evidence for a conviction by any means, but it's not "zero evidence".

No. Accusations are not evidence. Go look up the damn word.
That is why we call them accusations and not evidence.

He's kind of right. Although, there is a technical component to this.

If accusations are stated under oath or under penalty of perjury in court, it becomes evidence. Basically, a witness (which these women would certainly be) could relay their accusations in court, and it would be testimonial evidence that the jury could credit to determine guilt. Think about it, what's an affidavit but an written allegation given under oath?

So, is it admissible evidence in its current form? No, it would have to be submitted as part of an official court record. However, process aside, fundamentally speaking, an accusation, substantively, can very much, and almost invariably does, serve as evidence in a court proceeding.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Eagleeyejack posted...

Donomark posted...

Eh, you can't say there's 'zero evidence' if people have put their names forward with the allegation. Plus, the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' only matters in court. The government can't do anything to him (or whomever) until guilt is proven. The public can think whatever it wants. It's a bit ridiculous to always expect the general public to presume to not have any opinion as to guilt before a judgement or conviction. If he has a problem with it, he can sue. I doubt he will, because he's probably guilty.

That is just my point, having an opinion is one thing but these men are being presumed guilty and in almost every recent case there has been zero evidence, just a accusation.

What evidence do you require, especially in instances where there is no allegation of rape? You have multiple people (who don't know each other) coming forward exposing themselves to defamation suits. No, there is no known video evidence or taped recording of Louis or Spacey (that we know of). Although, the Times article mentions viewing Facebook messages of Louis apologizing to his accusers. At a certain point, isn't your expectation unrealistic?

So, if Spacey grabbed you, and you told me about it afterward, am I supposed to dismiss you (and several unrelated others) out of hand by saying "...But where's dat tape doe? Oh, you're videophone didn't capture it? Pfft. Liar. Of course, you just want to ruin Spacey."

Look, I get having skepticism. Skepticism is healthy, but you have to understand that the kind of evidence you may require very well could not be available in a lot of these instances. I believe Louie's accusers. I think that all of the accusations, his past comments and performances, his messages apologizing, the fact that's he's not out in front of this denying...contribute to reasonably concluding guilt.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Eh, you can't say there's 'zero evidence' if people have put their names forward with the allegation. Plus, the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' only matters in court. The government can't do anything to him (or whomever) until guilt is proven. The public can think whatever it wants. It's a bit ridiculous to always expect the general public to presume to not have any opinion as to guilt before a judgement or conviction. If he has a problem with it, he can sue. I doubt he will, because he's probably guilty.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Strider101 posted...

Just so you guys know, I'm not taking any sides. I didn't say that he's innocent or guilty but anyone can write an article about how they met certain people who are unwilling to reveal their identities and make up stories to suit an agenda. Without their names, it's hard to believe.

No, it's not hard to believe. Several people have put their names on record detailing sexual harassment.

Former Marine, Mark Ebenhoch
Bartender, Kris Nixon

http://people.com/tv/kevin-spacey-accusers-thank-anthony-rapp/

filmmaker, Tony Montana,
actor Roberto Cavazos,

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/nov/01/old-vic-accused-of-ignoring-sexual-misconduct-by-kevin-spacey

Come on, is it really a stretch to believe that he did this with people he had power over at work? House of Cards may continue production. People might fear for their jobs if they claim that Spacey harassed them. The series' creator claimed that he knew of no impropriety, they may not want to publicly contradict him for fear of retaliation. There are power dynamics in all of this.

I get having healthy skepticism, but I doubt that this now part of an agenda against Kevin Spacey. Maybe he actually just harassed people.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Plus, don't you think it's at least suspect that he didn't outright deny Rapp's allegations. How on Earth do you not say "I couldn't have possibly done that." He just said, "I don't remember."

WHAT?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

It's consistent with stories and allegations made by others who worked with him during his time at the Old Vic.

At a certain point, it's "Okay...there's a history of abuse."

OR

Kevin Spacey is facing the sex abuse equivalent of a moon landing conspiracy.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

KainWind posted...

I don't get why his career is being ruined by one mistake he made 30 years ago, unless I'm missing something. It doesn't seem to be something he is still doing and it's not like he became a terrible person overnight.

Um, yeah. It's wasn't just one 'mistake'. Google Kevin Spacey. He has several accusers spanning years.

FYI, I wouldn't call attempting to have sex with a 14-year-old boy a 'mistake'.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

JoeyBowey posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

you know you don't have to be in favor of gun regulations to admit that or country's stance on guns and infatuation with gun culture contributes to this issue.

Evidence required.

The question here is: would there be less loss of life without guns? The data suggests that no, the method would simply be different.

See, I think that this is a bit disingenuous. If your reasoning suggests that guns are no more useful weapons than other objects, then what is the rationale to desire having guns at all? Why would it matter?

People want guns because they're a more effective weapon than other weapons.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

It's not difficult to believe. Obviously, there's the general practice of people not reporting sexual assault. I think that his Billy Bush tape encouraged women to come forward. If you don't want to believe it, saying "Well, these allegations are coming forth at a convenient time", may be true, but is also a nifty escape valve. To my understanding, a lot of these women did not file civil suits. Obviously, just because the legal process wasn't involved doesn't mean that these incidents didn't occur. These allegations emerged in a highly partisan atmosphere, so it's sadly a given that they were treated (and in some cases dismissed) in a highly partisan manner.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

I think it's entitled to say, "This speechless protest offends me, it should be penalized. I should have a safe space from political opinions when I watch the NFL, even if the ability for others to express themselves wordlessly (and without gesture) is harmed."

If you can't handle it, don't watch it, ignore it, or recommend a less controversial way for them to express their concern. I do not believe in forcing my political views on other people through penalty, which is exactly what this is. I think that's craven, entitled, and whiny.

This holds for both sides of the political aisle. If NASCAR drivers or whoever, wanted to protest Obama or Hillary at races, more power to them. That's what this country is about. It's not harming anyone.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

SageHarpuia posted...

Kineth posted...

Yeah, this is bullshit, especially with the idea that you can force someone to respect something.

You can't tell your customers to go screw themselves, this is what the issue boils down to.

Okay. This is what you don't seem to realize, whatever else you think, these players do not see themselves as disrespecting the flag. That's the whole issue. You're saying, "Don't disrespect the flag! Don't disrespect the troops!" They're saying, "...We're not." You're saying, "Yeah, you are!"

You're forcing them to accept your point of view regarding a political protest. You're just begging the question, not re-framing the issue.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/