Random Political News

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Random Political News

Postby deltbucs » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:40 am

Babeinbucland wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:I’m not taking it to any kind of absurd position. The income was taxed ... people should be able to spend their money however they want without it being taxed again


Under your theory then once I am taxed on my income and I pay my employees they should not have to pay taxes on it again because it was already taxed once when I took it as income.

Your child did not earn that money so when you leave it to them, it is new income. And thus they should have to pay taxes on it as new income, because it is.

You're confused. We're discussing estate tax. You're describing inheritance tax.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4189
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 258 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:50 am

deltbucs wrote:
Babeinbucland wrote:
Under your theory then once I am taxed on my income and I pay my employees they should not have to pay taxes on it again because it was already taxed once when I took it as income.

Your child did not earn that money so when you leave it to them, it is new income. And thus they should have to pay taxes on it as new income, because it is.

You're confused. We're discussing estate tax. You're describing inheritance tax.


I thought she was arguing that Zarni’s desire to not have his estate taxed before it went to his daughter was equivalent to her employees not having taxes deducted from their paychecks because she was taxed on the money she is paying them to work for her? Either way, there seems to be some disconnect.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:45 am

deltbucs wrote:
Babeinbucland wrote:
Under your theory then once I am taxed on my income and I pay my employees they should not have to pay taxes on it again because it was already taxed once when I took it as income.

Your child did not earn that money so when you leave it to them, it is new income. And thus they should have to pay taxes on it as new income, because it is.

You're confused. We're discussing estate tax. You're describing inheritance tax.



Yes, there is no federal inheritance tax. Some states have it but not many. Just as some state have estate taxes as well. Luckily, I'm in a state that has neither.

My main conversation is about the federal estate taxes that currently under discussion in Trump's new tax plan.



To BIBL's comments -- the money we leave to our heirs IS NOT income in the traditional sense. It is a gift -- as you rightly point there was no traditional exchange as their is under employment income (or even income generated from capital interests/gains). In employment law both parties (laborer and the payer) are guaranteed contractual rights contingent upon their exchange (person A trading labor for money, person B trading money for labor). These rights are not guaranteed to heirs.

Furthermore, the money we leave to our heirs are NOT taxed at the same rates as income....that's the whole purpose of estate law. Estate law taxes the monies at a higher rate. If they were actually taxed as income to the heirs, the heirs would get to keep more money.

A further case against it as income is what MB pointed out -- the roughly $5M exemption. Why aren't all incomes given this $5M exemption. The current income tax has what about $10K for exemption?




And while it is easy (and lazy by the way) to say that $5M is a lot of money and people should be happy with that..1.) That was not always the case....it used to be much lower. 2.) Clinton proposed a much lower threshold - $3.5M. And she wanted to raise the rates to between 45% and 60%. Again, giving more evidence these gifts ARE NOT income in the traditional sense -- show me on the IRS tax table, what income is taxed at 45% or 60%?




It's clear what this is ... and so far only MB has the balls to admit it and stick to his guns for supporting it -- it is an additional tax on people who have lots of money.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby deltbucs » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:01 am

Zarniwoop wrote:I’m not taking it to any kind of absurd position. The income was taxed ... people should be able to spend their money however they want without it being taxed again


And $5 million in wealth after a lifetime is not something only Uber rich do. I will have more than that when I die and I’m nothing special. I wasn’t given anything. Why should you get some of that money instead of my daughter?


Answer this question directly MB —. Why should I have to give that money (money which I paid taxes on my whole life) to the general public instead of giving it to my daughter? Why do you have a claim on it? I have worked hard and dedicated my life to providing for my daughter...I haven’t worked hard for you or Clewi or anyone else. I do it for me and her. I will have paid far more than my fair share of taxes before I die, no need to take more of it when I do die

I tend to agree that it sounds absurd to tax someone on money they've already made, but I'm strongly against this cut. If we really want to make some tax cuts, this is not nearly the first place to do it. $5.5 mil is a pretty good chunk of money. I wouldn't consider it "uber" rich, but I'd consider someone with $5.5 mil pretty wealthy. Also, that $5.5 mil adjusts with inflation, so you may very will be within the exemption range by the time you've amassed that much . We're talking about a tax that only affects the top %0.2. And realize that even if you had %6 mil today and died, you would not get taxed at all on that %5.5 million. You'd only get taxed less than 10% on that %0.5 million that is above amount that is exempt. So your daughter is losing a very small percentage of the inheritance.
So while I agree with your argument that it's a scam to tax money that's already been taxed, this is not something that's really going to effect anyone's inheritance much....Unless that inheritance is a ridiculous amount. And if we want to cut some taxes, how about we cut taxes for the middle class? Especially if this cut is only services that effect the middle class.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4189
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 258 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:22 am

I agree the middle class gets "screwed" the most in relative terms...both under the current tax plan and Trumps proposed one.

on the lower end - something like 50% of people don't pay any federal income tax

on the upper end -- people who make $10M a year shouldnt be getting their rates cut as much as proposed in Trumps plan UNTIL that same cut (in terms of relative %) is applied to the lower levels. Under his plan some in the middle class will see their rates stay around 25%...for an change of 0%....some of the wealthiest will see a reduction of almost 4%. Now I realize the standard deductions are going to change, but that is a tool politicians will use to "hide" stuff or "game" the system. While the standard deduction goes up, other deductions go down -- including his ridiculous idea to take away head of household (at least the last tax plan I read of his did that...I'm not sure if the most recent one still did). I'm very skeptical of how this plan would impact effective tax rates for the middle class.

I personally would like to see an across the board tax cut of equal % applied to all.

Indeed, I think our entire tax system should be completely scrapped and we start over. I hate how capital is taxed at a different rate than labor (even though this change will likely hurt me more than average joe schmoe, I think it needs to be made). You want to start with policies that benefit the rich, start with that one. I see no philosophical reason there should be different rates. I also hate how 50% of our population is exempt from the game...they have no skin in the game as it pertains to income. And as it pertains to targeted welfare programs, I am not a fan of capped incomes for SS and Medicare. If we have decided that a tax should be levied to support these programs it should be levied on all income (both labor and capital and labor shouldn't be capped). This could lead to a dramatic reduction in the % that lower and middle classes get taken out of their paychecks...not to mention, it will help the solvency of the two programs. Contrary to what folks like Clewi say (when they throw out "trickle down" economics at anything they think is "unfair"), these taxes are about the only regressive taxes we have in our society (I'm sure there are some more small ones somewhere, but these are the two biggies).



As for the estate tax stuff....we are largely talking philosophical here...it only raises about $20B per year. An incredibly small fraction of our tax revenue. I think it is more pressing to fix this on ideological grounds, then to change the top rate from 38% to 35%.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:09 am

BIBL, I'd love to begin my bet but I don't know **** about this :)

(also we can extend the date since we were down for a week and you haven't been posting much)
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby deltbucs » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:38 am

Zarniwoop wrote:I agree the middle class gets "screwed" the most in relative terms...both under the current tax plan and Trumps proposed one.

on the lower end - something like 50% of people don't pay any federal income tax

on the upper end -- people who make $10M a year shouldnt be getting their rates cut as much as proposed in Trumps plan UNTIL that same cut (in terms of relative %) is applied to the lower levels. Under his plan some in the middle class will see their rates stay around 25%...for an change of 0%....some of the wealthiest will see a reduction of almost 4%. Now I realize the standard deductions are going to change, but that is a tool politicians will use to "hide" stuff or "game" the system. While the standard deduction goes up, other deductions go down -- including his ridiculous idea to take away head of household (at least the last tax plan I read of his did that...I'm not sure if the most recent one still did). I'm very skeptical of how this plan would impact effective tax rates for the middle class.

I personally would like to see an across the board tax cut of equal % applied to all.

Indeed, I think our entire tax system should be completely scrapped and we start over. I hate how capital is taxed at a different rate than labor (even though this change will likely hurt me more than average joe schmoe, I think it needs to be made). You want to start with policies that benefit the rich, start with that one. I see no philosophical reason there should be different rates. I also hate how 50% of our population is exempt from the game...they have no skin in the game as it pertains to income. And as it pertains to targeted welfare programs, I am not a fan of capped incomes for SS and Medicare. If we have decided that a tax should be levied to support these programs it should be levied on all income (both labor and capital and labor shouldn't be capped). This could lead to a dramatic reduction in the % that lower and middle classes get taken out of their paychecks...not to mention, it will help the solvency of the two programs. Contrary to what folks like Clewi say (when they throw out "trickle down" economics at anything they think is "unfair"), these taxes are about the only regressive taxes we have in our society (I'm sure there are some more small ones somewhere, but these are the two biggies).



As for the estate tax stuff....we are largely talking philosophical here...it only raises about $20B per year. An incredibly small fraction of our tax revenue. I think it is more pressing to fix this on ideological grounds, then to change the top rate from 38% to 35%.

Actually...last I saw, you boy's plan cuts the highest over earners from 40% all the way down to 33%. Meanwhile the middle class rates won't really change. Most will stay the same. Some will get a 3% break. Some will get a 7% increase and some even on the lower end are even luck enough to get a 10% increase! It's complete bullshit.

And while we're on the subject of brackets, it seems to me that most people don't understand how brackets actually work. It's the same idea as the estate tax. Someone in the highest bracket doesn't get taxed 40% across the board. Everyone gets taxed the same. So if I make 100k and someone makes 10 mil, we both get taxed on that first 100k the same percentage. Same goes for someone making 10k and someone making 10 mil. You both get taxed the same on that first 10k.
There's really no denying that income equality in this country is absurd and getting worse. I think keeping a similar system in place is a good idea as far as the way the brackets work to try to help even out the economy. It's the deductions and exemptions for the highest earners and corporations that are breaking the economy and Trump and the (R)'s don't care about fixing it or else they would. They certainly have the power to. And that's not to say that the (D)'s want to fix it either.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4189
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 258 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby RedLeader » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:28 pm

Image
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby deltbucs » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:51 pm

RedLeader wrote:Image

First, where is this info coming from and secondly, what point are you trying to make?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4189
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 258 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby HamBone » Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:29 am

With all the talk of Harvey Weinstein and other sexual predators in Hollywood...I thought this was an interesting article.

How Congress plays by different rules on sexual harassment and misconduct

Briony Whitehouse was a 19-year-old intern in 2003 when she boarded an elevator in the Russell Senate Office Building with a Republican senator, who she said groped her until the doors reopened.

She never reported the incident to her bosses for fear of jeopardizing her career. But she recently tweeted about her experience on Twitter as part of the “#MeToo” campaign, a social-media phenomenon that has aired thousands of complaints about unwanted sexual harassment.

Some of the accounts have called out by name Hollywood moguls, media stars, even a former U.S. president. Other women such as Whitehouse have stopped short of naming harassers. Whitehouse in an interview last week with The Washington Post declined to name the politician who made unwanted advances, convinced that he would retaliate.

“At the time, I didn’t know what to do, so I did nothing at all,” said Whitehouse, who works overseas as a political consultant. “Because this happened so early on for me, I just assumed this was the way things worked and that I’d have to accept it.”


If Whitehouse had chosen to pursue a complaint against the senator, she would have discovered a process unlike other parts of the federal government or much of the private sector. Her complaint likely would have been thrown out because interns have limited harassment protections under the unique employment law that Congress applies to itself.

Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers.

The result is a culture in which some lawmakers suspect harassment is rampant. Yet victims are unlikely to come forward, according to attorneys who represent them.

Under a law in place since 1995, accusers may file lawsuits only if they first agree to go through months of counseling and mediation. A special congressional office is charged with trying to resolve the cases out of court.

When settlements do occur, members do not pay them from their own office funds, a requirement in other federal agencies. Instead, the confidential payments come out of a special U.S. Treasury fund.

Congressional employees have received small settlements compared to the amounts some public figures pay out. Between 1997 and 2014, the U.S. Treasury has paid $15.2 million in 235 awards and settlements for Capitol Hill workplace violations, according to the congressional Office of Compliance. The statistics do not break down the exact nature of the violations.

Like Hollywood, where allegations against movie producer Harvey Weinstein touched off the recent #MeToo campaign, the Capitol Hill environment is dominated by powerful men who can make or break careers. Congress has resisted efforts that could improve the culture such as making anti-harassment training mandatory in their offices.

“It is not a victim-friendly process. It is an institution-protection process,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who has unsuccessfully pushed to overhaul how harassment cases are handled. “I think we would find that sexual harassment is rampant in the institution. But no one wants to know, because they’d have to do something about it.”

Troubling stories

Whitehouse was among thousands of women who shared stories of sexual harassment and assault online after the Weinstein allegations grabbed global attention.

Ally Coll Steele, a Washington lawyer, shared her story about a former Democratic senator grabbing her buttocks at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. She was an 18-year-old intern, and the senator’s wife and staff were standing nearby.

“I was in the position of having no choice but reacting in a way that was going to make a big deal out of it in front his staff or his wife, or acting like nothing was happening. I chose the latter,” Steele said.

People she told about the incident said they were sorry it happened but not surprised, she recalled. Her colleagues had described the former senator as “handsy.”

One former Senate staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals, said she was repeatedly groped at work events by a younger and more junior male staff member.

“He would just grab me,” she said. “It happened multiple times. The worst part was my other male colleagues would excuse it. He stayed on Capitol Hill for years.”

Another former staffer described interning on the Hill at 16 while attending a local high school. The office’s legislative director, a married man in his 40s, began paying attention to her in ways that became increasingly uncomfortable: adding her on AOL Instant Messenger, offering her rides home, saying she resembled his college girlfriend, and ultimately suggesting he pick her up from school so they could have lunch.

While the man never touched her or made overtly sexual comments, the former staffer said his attention was inappropriate.

“What 40-something man is taking a 16-year-old woman out to lunch?” she said.

Power culture

Capitol Hill has long been known as a demanding workplace for young people, trying to make a mark in an adrenaline-fueled Washington power center. Work duties often require personal interactions with members and high-ranking staffers, and success requires that employees demonstrate personal loyalty, political solidarity and professional rapport with colleagues and superiors.

Making claims of harassment or inappropriate advances come at high risk.

“There is a sense that going forward with an allegation like this would be completely the end of any career working for anybody on the Hill — and it undoubtedly would be,” said Debra Katz, an employment attorney in Washington who represents congressional aides in sexual harassment cases.

“We have no doubt that sexual harassment is underreported in Congress, just as all workplace infractions are underreported in Congress,” said Brad Fitch, president and chief executive of the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit organization that helps lawmakers and staff learn to run their offices.

When cases do emerge, they can attract years of unwanted attention, another disincentive for reporting, attorneys say.

Sex scandals involving current and former lawmakers have been infrequent but steady. A count by The Post shows at least a dozen members have resigned or chosen not to seek reelection in the last 15 years due to extramarital affairs, inappropriate contact online and other sexual misbehavior.

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) resigned in 2006 after sending sexually explicit online messages to teenage current and former male House pages. The popular House program was eventually disbanded. At the time, Foley apologized “for the conduct that it was alleged that I did.” He did not respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) stepped down in 2010 amid allegations that he had groped and tickled male staffers. At the time, Massa said his actions were not sexual. James D. Doyle, Massa’s attorney, said federal investigations have not found the former congressman “committed any wrongdoing whatsoever.”

In 2015, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) settled a sexual harassment charge brought by his former communications director Lauren Greene, who said he made inappropriate comments “designed to gauge whether (she) was interested in a sexual relationship,” according to her legal complaint. Farenthold denied wrongdoing.

Greene filed the lawsuit after participating in counseling and mediation. Neither she nor Farenthold’s office responded to requests for comment.

Cases involving high-ranking congressional staffers get far less notice. Female staffers in the office of Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) alleged former chief of staff Kenny West behaved inappropriately toward women. One former female staffer interviewed by the Office of Congressional Ethics said West would play with women’s hair and try to look down their shirts, according to an interview transcript. West was moved into an advisory position before he left Meadows’s office permanently.

West denied inappropriate behavior and said the allegations have hurt him professionally. He said he is “old-fashioned” and the situation could best be described as a misunderstanding between him and female aides.

“There was never any sexual harassment and had there been any by anyone, the congressman, Mrs. Meadows, myself and my wife — we would not tolerate it,” he said in an interview.

Meadows’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Katz said women who are harassed in congressional jobs contact her every few months to learn about their rights.

“We’ve worked with a number of women who, after these experiences, stopped working on Capitol Hill,” Katz said. “They were done. They felt so betrayed.”

Tangled process

Victims who do seek action face a confusing process under a law known as the Congressional Accountability Act that was put in place in 1995. Sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), it imposed a range of civil rights, labor and worker-safety laws on Capitol Hill for the first time.

A scandal involving Sen. Robert Packwood (R-Ore.) and multiple women accusers led to his 1995 resignation and to debate over which labor protections should apply to Congress. Packwood first denied the allegations, but later apologized.

Following the Packwood allegations, a 1993 survey by The Post showed that one-third of female congressional employees responding said they were sexually harassed by members, supervisors, lobbyists or fellow aides.

Grassley’s bill established the 20-person Office of Compliance to adjudicate disputes and handle harassment complaints.

The law gives victims 180 days after the offending incident to initiate complaints. Victims must agree to go through counseling, which take typically takes 30 days.

After that, victims who want to continue begin 30 days of mediation, which is handled by a neutral mediator. If the problem is still unresolved, they can pursue an OOC administrative hearing or file a federal lawsuit against their harasser.

The confidential dispute resolution process can be made public only if the case is ruled in the victim’s favor, after it goes through administrative or judicial proceedings.

The OOC contends that its process has helped resolve “scores of employee disputes” and benefits all sides.

Some advocates believe the pre-lawsuit mediation requirement undercuts victims. The rule contrasts sharply with the rest of the federal government, where mediation is an option but not mandatory for employees to pursue legal action.

Few staffers seem aware of their rights or the harassment reporting process.

“A lot of people are confused about it. We’ll get calls from people who work down on the Hill, and they’re not all that clear as to what they should be doing,” said Alan Lescht, an employment attorney in Washington who handles harassment cases involving federal and congressional employees.

The only mandatory training for congressional employees is an ethics program put into place after the 2006 Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and instruction on cybersecurity. The lack of mandatory anti-harassment training places Congress out of step with the majority of the private sector, according to human-resources experts.

The OOC sends newsletters and regular emails urging chiefs of staff to prioritize staff training and describing how to access resources online. While the office oversees tens of thousands of employees, only about 800 people since 2015 have taken its 20-minute online tutorial on preventing sexual harassment.

Some congressional leaders have been questioned about the culture on Capitol Hill amid a national outcry over allegations of serial harassment by Weinstein.

Grassley told The Post this week that if the law is not effectively accomplishing sexual harassment prevention and anti-discriminatory training, “then it should be revisited.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said members need to take responsibility for anti-harassment training in their own offices. A 2014 effort led by Speier to make training mandatory was defeated, but Pelosi told The Post she supports Speier’s efforts. On Thursday, Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) introduced a bill to require sexual-harassment training.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who has spoken about her own experience with sexual harassment in Congress, said she supports mandatory sexual harassment training for every member of Congress and their staff.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) recently said that it would be “naive” to suggest sexual harassment doesn’t happen on Capitol Hill, and that current systems can always be improved. His office declined to offer more details.

“I do believe that exposing these things can help improve the culture,” Ryan said in an interview on MSNBC. “The more you expose it and the more we can castigate people in society on these things to show that this is not acceptable behavior, I think that’s to the good.”

Speier said members need to be held more accountable. “It’s an embarrassment,” she said, “and we’ve got to fix it.”


I'll never understand why we allow the political elites to operate differently than the average American...
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:49 am

That's fucked up.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8556
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:55 am

Yep, I don’t find it the least bit surprising
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby deltbucs » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:56 am

HamBone wrote:I'll never understand why we allow the political elites to operate differently than the average American...

Because we keep voting for terrible people like Hillary and Trump and Rick Scott because "the other team is the real bad guys".
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4189
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 258 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:24 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:the glorious day of the rope has arrived for the hollywood/pedo elite. Everyone is complicit. The women are guilty. Look at Oliver Stone's response. Dan Schneider will be next. Of course, the battle is now being fought in the their territory - on the stage, so for the majority of people that still live in the haze will probably forget about this in a couple weeks and go back to their regular programming. praying that the dominoes continue to fall, for the good of the state and the people.

</mdbstylepost>


And the wonderful day of the rope lives on...

Up to 60 women for Weinstein
Ashley Judd admits she offered Weinstein sex for an Oscar role
Louis CK refusing to address his sexual assault allegations
Spacey admits to being a pedophile rapist (but it's ok because he's just a confused gay guy!)
Aaand on NPR this morning we're discussing how evil it is that...sob... these poor women are....sob.... stuck in these evil non-disclosure agreements, that they.... sob.... chose to sign for...sob.... incredibly large sums of money

Gee, who would have thought, literally prostituting yourself for fame and monetary gain, all while propping yourself up as the moral vanguard, might, just MIGHT grate at your soul over the years. Quick - pivot to "feminism!". The rest of these degenerate ((((Hollywood)))) scumbags that have infected this country and subverted our society and culture can ****ing hang. Glorious, glorious day of the rope.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:23 pm

Totally mischaracterized what Ashley Judd said about that encounter.

She negotiated her way out of a bad situation and you call her a whore for it.

I'm guessing you don't have daughters.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8556
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:29 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Totally mischaracterized what Ashley Judd said about that encounter.

She negotiated her way out of a bad situation and you call her a whore for it.

I'm guessing you don't have daughters.

Still pretty fucked up to work with him twice afterwards. I don't feel sympathy for her and it's already established he's scum.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:32 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Totally mischaracterized what Ashley Judd said about that encounter.

She negotiated her way out of a bad situation and you call her a whore for it.

I'm guessing you don't have daughters.

Still pretty fucked up to work with him twice afterwards. I don't feel sympathy for her and it's already established he's scum.

Never won that Oscar, did she?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8556
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Babeinbucland » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:17 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:BIBL, I'd love to begin my bet but I don't know **** about this :)

(also we can extend the date since we were down for a week and you haven't been posting much)

Of course :) oh and just for clarity the ghost thread doesn’t count lol
User avatar
Babeinbucland
 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:54 am

beardmcdoug wrote:BIBL, I'd love to begin my bet but I don't know **** about this :)

(also we can extend the date since we were down for a week and you haven't been posting much)

She could really use your support for this one...
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=790&p=232901#p232297
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 715 times
Been thanked: 255 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:33 am

Babeinbucland wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:BIBL, I'd love to begin my bet but I don't know **** about this :)

(also we can extend the date since we were down for a week and you haven't been posting much)

Of course :) oh and just for clarity the ghost thread doesn’t count lol


LOL
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:41 am

Buc2 wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:BIBL, I'd love to begin my bet but I don't know **** about this :)

(also we can extend the date since we were down for a week and you haven't been posting much)

She could really use your support for this one...
http://www.buczone.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 01#p232297


Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:48 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Totally mischaracterized what Ashley Judd said about that encounter.

She negotiated her way out of a bad situation and you call her a whore for it.

I'm guessing you don't have daughters.


she got out of the situation using that line... then didn't tell anybody... then worked with him...

her silence led to more girls getting sexually assaulted. if I had a daughter, I imagine I'd be even more pissed because it's dumb fame hungry and money hungry whores like her that embolden the actions of people like Weinstein with their passive attitude towards his actions.

What? living a normal life and making a normal wage isn't acceptable to fall back on for these people? "Oh no, nobody would believe me, then I'd have to do the unthinkable... I'd have to give up on my "dreams" of being world famous and go back to living a normal person's life". Give me a ****ing break. It's these people's narcissism and desire to be world famous.... at any cost... that got them into, and prevented them from getting out of, those situations
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:18 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Totally mischaracterized what Ashley Judd said about that encounter.

She negotiated her way out of a bad situation and you call her a whore for it.

I'm guessing you don't have daughters.


she got out of the situation using that line... then didn't tell anybody... then worked with him...

her silence led to more girls getting sexually assaulted. if I had a daughter, I imagine I'd be even more pissed because it's dumb fame hungry and money hungry whores like her that embolden the actions of people like Weinstein with their passive attitude towards his actions.

What? living a normal life and making a normal wage isn't acceptable to fall back on for these people? "Oh no, nobody would believe me, then I'd have to do the unthinkable... I'd have to give up on my "dreams" of being world famous and go back to living a normal person's life". Give me a ****ing break. It's these people's narcissism and desire to be world famous.... at any cost... that got them into, and prevented them from getting out of, those situations


Oh, so now instead of offering Harvey Weinstein sex in exchange for an Oscar, she didn't? Glad we straightened that out.

Tell me again how a woman who turns down sex from a creepy guy is complicit in any future crimes he may or may not commit. Especially given the fact that an adult asking an adult for sex is not against the law?


You sure we aren't having this conversation because she gave a cringeworthy rant at the womens' march and you just don't like her?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8556
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:32 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
she got out of the situation using that line... then didn't tell anybody... then worked with him...

her silence led to more girls getting sexually assaulted. if I had a daughter, I imagine I'd be even more pissed because it's dumb fame hungry and money hungry whores like her that embolden the actions of people like Weinstein with their passive attitude towards his actions.

What? living a normal life and making a normal wage isn't acceptable to fall back on for these people? "Oh no, nobody would believe me, then I'd have to do the unthinkable... I'd have to give up on my "dreams" of being world famous and go back to living a normal person's life". Give me a ****ing break. It's these people's narcissism and desire to be world famous.... at any cost... that got them into, and prevented them from getting out of, those situations


Oh, so now instead of offering Harvey Weinstein sex in exchange for an Oscar, she didn't? Glad we straightened that out.

Tell me again how a woman who turns down sex from a creepy guy is complicit in any future crimes he may or may not commit. Especially given the fact that an adult asking an adult for sex is not against the law?


You sure we aren't having this conversation because she gave a cringeworthy rant at the womens' march and you just don't like her?


First off, I was at that march. I believe in women deserving respect... that they themselves, just like every man on this planet, have earned. But each human makes their own choices and should be responsible for those decisions.

What are you saying in your first line? Let me clear it up:
-Weinstein was in the process of, or threatening sexual assault, and she (per her telling of the story), stopped him and said "you know what, Harvey, if you get me a role that lands me an Oscar, I'll have sex with you"

-I am critical of her silence after that encounter. Sure, say the line to deflect in the moment, but waiting until countless others get sexually assaulted, and waiting until others come forward first is a cowardly (and judging by her motivations to stay quiet - winning an Oscar) and selfish thing to do. And then for her to go on stage at the women's march and give her, as you say, "cringeworthy rant", like she is some banner holder of women's empowerment. What a joke. You sure you're not just white knighting an embarrassing, narcissistic human being just because she's a woman?

I don't do e-celebs. I don't keep up with this incessant madhouse that exists on the internet (for the most part)... but I did come across this clip of this guy laying it down. And it's one of the most well-formulated and articulate explanations of what is going on here, and it has stuck with me over the past couple weeks. I highly recommend you (and whoever) to watch it. Click on 15:23, set it to 1.5x speed, and listen:



Watch until you no longer find it interesting, but the point is made fully by 32:00
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:05 pm

You put out an incorrect statement. I correct you, and now I'm white knighting?

Prior to your post, I didn't know the first damned thing about any of this. So I googled it, watched the interview in it's entirety, and called out the incorrect statement you made. Please note how I said nothing about any of the other celebrities you mentioned in your post. "Ashley Judd admits she offered Weinstein sex for an Oscar role" stuck out as odd to me and under scrutiny, the statement turned out to be as I said: " Totally mischaracterized what Ashley Judd said about that encounter.".

After getting exposed, you try to move the goalposts and say how she's "cowardly" "selfish" "embarrassing" and "narcissistic" for not going to the cops for being sexually harassed. Which is it? was she negotiating sex for an Oscar, or was she being sexually harrassed and decided to stay quiet about it?

It seems clear now that you don't think she whored herself out for an Oscar she never won, so I suppose you're choosing to die on the "staying silent" hill.

If you think she did other women a disservice by staying silent about it, that is your opinion and I don't care to debate its merits. But if you're going to say something that is spun in such a way as to imply something that didn't occur, expect to be called out on it.

You can think anything you want about Ashley Judd. But don't expect to misrepresent what she, or anyone else for that matter, says in order to fit your opinions and go unchallenged.

EDIT: I'm sorry, but I simply don't have time to watch that video right now.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8556
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby NYBF » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:15 pm

Who in the actual **** would sit there for thirty six minutes and listen to some guy babble about Harvey Weinstein? Do people actually do this?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:31 pm

Women have been using sex to get what they want from men for centuries. Perhaps since the dawn of modern humans. Men have been doing the same except they use the their superior physical prowess or the status that prowess afforded them. This dance is never ending. Hollywood is well known for this dance so it's really difficult to say who was preying on whom in every single case with Weinstein or any of the other cases that are popping out of the woodwork right now. In some cases I'm sure it was Weinstein doing the preying. In others, I'm sure it was the woman doing the preying by using sex to get what she thought Weinstein could give her. We'll never know the truth here, so forgive me when I find myself being skeptical of some of these stories.

As a child raised by a single mother and the youngest sibling with 2 older sisters, I learned a great respect for women from an early age. But just because I have a great respect for women, that doesn't mean I have to buy into every harassment story that comes down the pike...especially where Hollyweird is concerned.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 715 times
Been thanked: 255 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:05 pm

NYBF wrote:Who in the actual **** would sit there for thirty six minutes and listen to some guy babble about Harvey Weinstein? Do people actually do this?


That was my first thought too. This was my first experience with that. Then again, as I'm typing this, I realized that people (basically every baby boomer in the US) sit there for AT LEAST thirty six minutes every night, watching some guy babble on about about whatever advertisers pay them to babble on about. Shocking that people do that as well.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:11 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:You put out an incorrect statement. I correct you, and now I'm white knighting?

Prior to your post, I didn't know the first damned thing about any of this. So I googled it, watched the interview in it's entirety, and called out the incorrect statement you made. Please note how I said nothing about any of the other celebrities you mentioned in your post. "Ashley Judd admits she offered Weinstein sex for an Oscar role" stuck out as odd to me and under scrutiny, the statement turned out to be as I said: " Totally mischaracterized what Ashley Judd said about that encounter.".

After getting exposed, you try to move the goalposts and say how she's "cowardly" "selfish" "embarrassing" and "narcissistic" for not going to the cops for being sexually harassed. Which is it? was she negotiating sex for an Oscar, or was she being sexually harrassed and decided to stay quiet about it?

It seems clear now that you don't think she whored herself out for an Oscar she never won, so I suppose you're choosing to die on the "staying silent" hill.

If you think she did other women a disservice by staying silent about it, that is your opinion and I don't care to debate its merits. But if you're going to say something that is spun in such a way as to imply something that didn't occur, expect to be called out on it.

You can think anything you want about Ashley Judd. But don't expect to misrepresent what she, or anyone else for that matter, says in order to fit your opinions and go unchallenged.

EDIT: I'm sorry, but I simply don't have time to watch that video right now.


I originally said she offered sex to Weinstein for an Oscar winning role. That is not an incorrect statement. You didn't expose me lol. I had to clarify the incident to you because you didn't know anything about it... what is so hard to understand about the series of events. He was assaulting her (or threatening to) and she told him "tell you what, if you get me a role and I win an oscar, I'll have sex with you". That is offering sex for an Oscar winning role. And prior to that, she was being sexually assaulted or was threatened to be sexually assaulted by Weinstein. These are not mutually exclusive events. I still don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:15 pm

Buc2 wrote:Women have been using sex to get what they want from men for centuries. Perhaps since the dawn of modern humans. Men have been doing the same except they use the their superior physical prowess or the status that prowess afforded them. This dance is never ending. Hollywood is well known for this dance so it's really difficult to say who was preying on whom in every single case with Weinstein or any of the other cases that are popping out of the woodwork right now. In some cases I'm sure it was Weinstein doing the preying. In others, I'm sure it was the woman doing the preying by using sex to get what she thought Weinstein could give her. We'll never know the truth here, so forgive me when I find myself being skeptical of some of these stories.

As a child raised by a single mother and the youngest sibling with 2 older sisters, I learned a great respect for women from an early age. But just because I have a great respect for women, that doesn't mean I have to buy into every harassment story that comes down the pike...especially where Hollyweird is concerned.


And I'm not even saying that I'm absolving, WHATSOEVER, Weinstein or any other piece of ****, like Polanski or any of these other serial pedophiles/rapists. I'm not, IN THE LEAST, trying to say that I am on their side, defending them against "some money grubbing whores". These guys are the biggest pieces of **** in this whole event. But everybody has different levels degrees of accountability, and the complacency and silence of these incredibly powerful, wealthy, who have access to any media platform they want, should not go without criticism.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 105 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests