Pussy hats.. unite!

[Arkady]

so, in paraphrase, Weinstein's serial denigration of women is no big deal. ?

No. That's a laughably terrible paraphrase. Since what I wrote is already so short and clear, I'm not convinced it needs a paraphrase, but since you're clearly struggling with reading comprehension, I'll provide one all the same.

Paraphrase: Weinstein's sexual misbehavior is a big deal to fewer women than Trump's is, because Trump has a huge amount of power that can be expected to have an impact on the lives of millions of American women.

and, as an aside.. what is it about Gorsuch, that makes him 'vile' in your book..?

For starters, he wants to criminalize reproductive choice -- denying women the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. That's all about kissing up to the theocrats. He also took the theocratic position in favor of giving religious owners special rights to break the law, when it comes to denying their employees basic insurance services that non-religious business owners are expected to provide. And he pushes the theocratic view when it comes to euthanasia, too -- basically, that people who are suffering and no longer want to live should be made to suffer indefinitely, because a private person helping someone to die with dignity is wrong (whereas the state killing someone who wants to live is just fine, judging by his capital punishment rulings).

 

[marvin martian]

so, in paraphrase, Weinstein's serial denigration of women is no big deal. ?

and, as an aside.. what is it about Gorsuch, that makes him 'vile' in your book..?

Truly vile is wanting to exterminate 64 million Americans because they disagree with your politics:

Clinton's polling numbers went up in the wake of the deplorables comment. It pissed off the halfwits and the sub-human scum who were embarrassed to realize that people recognized how deplorable they were, but they already supported Trump, so it made no difference what they thought.

Question: What's the square root of negative one?

Answer: A Trump voter who isn't sub-human scum.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

"That's different", Phil.

If libs didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any, at all.

The sheeple march against those whom their handlers designate... never their own kind.

We'd all like to see Trump come out and condemn Harvey Weinstein, to make a statement to the country that sexual assault of women is WRONG.
Unfortunately, Trump is as much a sexual pervert as Weinstein.....so he has to remain silent. He doesn't have the moral authority, pussy grabber that he is.

 

[Charcat]

We'd all like to see Trump come out and condemn Harvey Weinstein, to make a statement to the country that sexual assault of women is WRONG.
Unfortunately, Trump is as much a sexual pervert as Weinstein.....so he has to remain silent. He doesn't have the moral authority, pussy grabber that he is.

Harvey Weinstein is the least of his concerns. Get a grip.

 

[PhilFish]

No. That's a laughably terrible paraphrase. Since what I wrote is already so short and clear, I'm not convinced it needs a paraphrase, but since you're clearly struggling with reading comprehension, I'll provide one all the same.

Paraphrase: Weinstein's sexual misbehavior is a big deal to fewer women than Trump's is, because Trump has a huge amount of power that can be expected to have an impact on the lives of millions of American women.



For starters, he wants to criminalize reproductive choice -- denying women the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. That's all about kissing up to the theocrats. He also took the theocratic position in favor of giving religious owners special rights to break the law, when it comes to denying their employees basic insurance services that non-religious business owners are expected to provide. And he pushes the theocratic view when it comes to euthanasia, too -- basically, that people who are suffering and no longer want to live should be made to suffer indefinitely, because a private person helping someone to die with dignity is wrong (whereas the state killing someone who wants to live is just fine, judging by his capital punishment rulings).

nay friend, not struggling...just interpreting the prose. (you may think people struggle with it, but rest assured, it's no labor at all)


it is weird though..the gradations applied to sexual misconduct.. Hollywood, it its mistreating is reality, and depiction in film and media..is pervasive indeed. odd, the dismissal. but, no matter. to each their own..


women should have the right to reproduce as they see fit. but to conflate that chosing with the termination of a pregnancy is a matter all together different. and some, as is their right, may not wish to facilitate that choice. whether by dint of their religious preference, or otherwise.. it's a right..equal to and not less than.

 

[Arkady]

nay friend, not struggling...just interpreting the prose.

You interpreted it in a way that was patently wrong.

it's no labor at all

If you're not trying hard, then put in more effort. I could forgive your absurdly bad reading comprehension if it were mere stupidity, since there's nothing you can do about that. But if it's laziness, that's on you.

it is weird though..the gradations applied to sexual misconduct.. Hollywood, it its mistreating is reality, and depiction in film and media..is pervasive indeed. odd, the dismissal. but, no matter. to each their own..

It's not a dismissal. It's an explanation for why millions of women would be willing to organize based on the conduct of someone whose power will have huge implications for them, versus not based on the conduct of a former studio head who is in no position to hurt them.

women should have the right to reproduce as they see fit.

Yes. And they should have a right not to reproduce when they see fit. The idea of using criminal law to force a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term is barbaric.

and some, as is their right, may not wish to facilitate that choice. whether by dint of their religious preference, or otherwise.

Keep in mind, the Gorsuch position is that religious people should have special rights that non religious people don't have. So, for example, if you think the invisible man who lives in the sky has deemed birth control pills yucky, then on the basis of that faith, Gorsuch wants you to be entitled to stiff your employees out of legally mandated insurance coverage of such pills. If, on the other hand, I object to infertility treatments, on the grounds that I think the world is already overpopulated and I don't want it to get worse, Gorsuch wouldn't give me any special right to deny my employees legally mandated coverage for such treatments. And it's not just that he'd discriminate in favor of religious people against non-religious people. He'd even favor his chosen religion over other religions. For example, a Catholic-friendly superstition, like the taboo against birth control, entitles a person to a special exemption from the law. But if you're a member of a less favored religion, and instead have a problem with blood transfusions (like the Jehova's Witnesses), or women working outside the home, you don't get any special dispensation to deny your employees coverage for blood transfusions or female doctors and nurses. It's unconstitutional religious favoritism. And that's vile.

 

[PhilFish]

You interpreted it in a way that was patently wrong.



If you're not trying hard, then put in more effort. I could forgive your absurdly bad reading comprehension if it were mere stupidity, since there's nothing you can do about that. But if it's laziness, that's on you.



It's not a dismissal. It's an explanation for why millions of women would be willing to organize based on the conduct of someone whose power will have huge implications for them, versus not based on the conduct of a former studio head who is in no position to hurt them.



Yes. And they should have a right not to reproduce when they see fit. The idea of using criminal law to force a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term is barbaric.



Keep in mind, the Gorsuch position is that religious people should have special rights that non religious people don't have. So, for example, if you think the invisible man who lives in the sky has deemed birth control pills yucky, then on the basis of that faith, Gorsuch wants you to be entitled to stiff your employees out of legally mandated insurance coverage of such pills. If, on the other hand, I object to infertility treatments, on the grounds that I think the world is already overpopulated and I don't want it to get worse, Gorsuch wouldn't give me any special right to deny my employees legally mandated coverage for such treatments. And it's not just that he'd discriminate in favor of religious people against non-religious people. He'd even favor his chosen religion over other religions. For example, a Catholic-friendly superstition, like the taboo against birth control, entitles a person to a special exemption from the law. But if you're a member of a less favored religion, and instead have a problem with blood transfusions (like the Jehova's Witnesses), or women working outside the home, you don't get any special dispensation to deny your employees coverage for blood transfusions or female doctors and nurses. It's unconstitutional religious favoritism. And that's vile.

pretty spot on actually, as it plays out again and again and again..

people do have a right to reproduce whenever they see fit. don't think anybody disputes that, go forth and bang away and all that. at issue is when people have reproduced and decide to dispose of the results... see.

 

[marvin martian]

pretty spot on actually, as it plays out again and again and again..

people do have a right to reproduce whenever they see fit. don't think anybody disputes that, go forth and bang away and all that. at issue is when people have reproduced and decide to dispose of the results... see.

Good luck with this. You're dealing with a guy who doesn't blink at the idea of exterminating 64 million of his fellow Americans because he dislikes their politics.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Here's your content.
How many con women are indifferent to male sexual assault?
We know MANY con men are indifferent.

How many women Trump bashers were indifferent to bill clinton and Harvey raping women?

 

[NinaS]

There should be seas of hats marching all over the place by now.. no?

In Hollywood.. outside media outlets..

The original hat Knitters live in LA.. should be a marching outside Hollywood studios day and night...

No?

What’s wrong with p*ssy hats? IMO it’s better for a woman to show that she’s against being talked about and demeaned by a man described as Putin's’ C*ck holster.

so, in paraphrase, Weinstein's serial denigration of women is no big deal. ?

and, as an aside.. what is it about Gorsuch, that makes him 'vile' in your book..?

Who ever said Weinstein’s treatment of women was no big deal? I’d guess that he thought he had a “right” , like “The Don” to use his egotistical self -acclaimed “stardom” to do anything he wanted. But I have seen Trump’s male and female Defenders here shrugging off Trump’s disgusting treatment of women.
Gorsuch is an ass. A Trump kind of guy in my opinion, Why do you ask?

 

[PhilFish]

What’s wrong with p*ssy hats? IMO it’s better for a woman to show that she’s against being talked about and demeaned by a man described as Putin's’ C*ck holster.

Who ever said Weinstein’s treatment of women was no big deal? I’d guess that he thought he had a “right” , like “The Don” to use his egotistical self -acclaimed “stardom” to do anything he wanted. But I have seen Trump’s male and female Defenders here shrugging off Trump’s disgusting treatment of women.
Gorsuch is an ass. A Trump kind of guy in my opinion, Why do you ask?

He's a nice guy..it seems. Gorsuch that is.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

What’s wrong with p*ssy hats? IMO it’s better for a woman to show that she’s against being talked about and demeaned by a man described as Putin's’ C*ck holster.

Who ever said Weinstein’s treatment of women was no big deal? I’d guess that he thought he had a “right” , like “The Don” to use his egotistical self -acclaimed “stardom” to do anything he wanted. But I have seen Trump’s male and female Defenders here shrugging off Trump’s disgusting treatment of women.
Gorsuch is an ass. A Trump kind of guy in my opinion, Why do you ask?

20 plus years speaks volumes of how he was protected
Your hypocrisy is noted.

 

[Capitalist]

so, you're troubled, too, by the stunning silence of the hatters?

I would think Wienstein would be in a sea of pussy hats wherever he went. And he's not alone. Allegations are popping up all over Hollywood with nary a pussy to be found!

Perhaps @JuliefromOhio is partially right. Perhaps lefty women are indifferent to lefty male sexual assault.

 

[Capitalist]

You're missing the point. The question is to whom is it a very big deal. The Weinstein story has been covered pretty heavily because of our society's celebrity culture. It's the same reason we treat it as a big deal when Brad and Angelina split up, or a Kardashian has a baby, even though normally the lives of people we've never met aren't something we care about. But when it comes to the real impact Weinstein has on American women, it's almost non-existent. He may have had great power in the tiny circles of a certain kind of middle-brow art house film productions, but he has no influence on broader policy. Trump does. That's why the fact Trump is a rapacious sexual predator and misogynist matters so much. The decisions he makes (e.g., the nomination of the vile Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court), are going to make huge differences in the lives of millions of women for decades to come. That's why there was an unprecedented grass-roots movement to protest Trump, with five million people turning out to make their voices heard during the Women's March. It would be silly to expect a similar display about misconduct that has vastly narrower implications.

You would have us believe that Trump would put women in danger at the national level.

Ironic, don't you think, that it is DEMOCRATS who actually put women in danger all over the US.

 

[Capitalist]

We'd all like to see Trump come out and condemn Harvey Weinstein, to make a statement to the country that sexual assault of women is WRONG.

I think Trump is smarter than that. If he did your bidding, the nation could expect the next few news cycles to be choked with liberal blathering, wailing, and drama. In the meantime, we as a nation have bigger fish to fry.

Weinstien is sinking like the Titanic. He doesn't need any help from Trump.

 

[Capitalist]

It's not a dismissal. It's an explanation for why millions of women would be willing to organize based on the conduct of someone whose power will have huge implications for them, versus not based on the conduct of a former studio head who is in no position to hurt them.

And yet your explanation defies the facts. The fact is, Trump--backed very heavily by the NRA--is a far safer choice for American women as president than some gun banning liberal democrat.

Meet a true victim of the democrats' War on Women. Just one of many.

 

[Capitalist]

Keep in mind, the Gorsuch position is that religious people should have special rights that non religious people don't have. So, for example, if you think the invisible man who lives in the sky has deemed birth control pills yucky, then on the basis of that faith, Gorsuch wants you to be entitled to stiff your employees out of legally mandated insurance coverage of such pills. If, on the other hand, I object to infertility treatments, on the grounds that I think the world is already overpopulated and I don't want it to get worse, Gorsuch wouldn't give me any special right to deny my employees legally mandated coverage for such treatments.

Well, we shouldn't be required to pass legislation to accommodate the insane which is exactly what you suggest with your overpopulation justification.

Our laws are applicable to land within our borders. And if you think the US is overpopulated then you've never been to Wyoming, or Montana, or Idaho. . .

. . .or eastern California, or western New York.

So let's not pass insane laws, m'kay?

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Harvey Weinstein is the least of his concerns. Get a grip.

We look to our presidents for moral authority.
Trump has none.

 

[sear]

"We look to our presidents for moral authority.
Trump has none." JO #18

Concisely elucidated JO.

But I'm not endorsing the newly rejected Republican of pretending the U.S. should be morally upright.

“You claim the mantle of the party of family values, and this is the guy you nominate”. President Obama commenting on the Republican party's nomination of Donald Trump (during headline news of Trump boasting about inappropriate behavior w/ women) FOX / Google 16/10/13

But I'm on the other side of the coin on this one.

"It is a consensus in Western Europe that if you put the private lives of politicians under a microscope it just leads to hypocrisy, not better leadership." said in Clinton / Lewinsky context on C-SPAN 98/10/19 by ARD German TV Correspondent Tom Buhrow

What I find offensive is:
Republicans were willing to flaunt the self-defeating hypocrisy of taking great pains to make public the details about Clinton / Lewinsky, while simultaneously complaining how embarrassing it was to have to explain the news to their children.

Somehow when a Republican does it, it's not quite so bad.

The compounding iron:
- What Clinton did with Lewinsky was between consenting adults.

- What Trump did to the kitty cats was sexual exploitation.

Apparently that's irrelevant to Republicans.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

We look to our presidents for moral authority.
Trump has none.

Hahahaha!

You mean like Kennedy, Clinton and Obobo?

LMAO!