Sorry to say

hanuman wrote:Sure, I understand the business rationale for Playboy's decision, but the way Fox News presented the decision was that somehow it is men's right to have access to nude pictures of women, and that taking that access away is part of an onslaught against men.

And that should tell you everything you need to know about Fox and its understanding of life in the 21st century....

The E wrote:

hanuman wrote:Sure, I understand the business rationale for Playboy's decision, but the way Fox News presented the decision was that somehow it is men's right to have access to nude pictures of women, and that taking that access away is part of an onslaught against men.

And that should tell you everything you need to know about Fox and its understanding of life in the 21st century....

Oh, absolutely. I visit the site to get an honest insight into the conservative political and sociocultural worldview, to balance my progressive bias. Sadly, not once had I been proven wrong yet in my belief that conservatives are selfish, callous imbeciles.

hanuman wrote:Michael, your post reminds me of the slut vs stud dichotomy, wrt how we as a society still tend to think about male sexuality vs female sexuality. Of course, it's all part of a much broader conflict or debate regarding women's subjugation to men at all levels of daily life.

Just taking it down to the basics!

Mike.

And Michael, even though I am gay, Playboy actually features some very interesting and informative articles. My straight buds always tease me when I read their copies, that I'm not really gay...

The E wrote:

hanuman wrote:Sure, I understand the business rationale for Playboy's decision, but the way Fox News presented the decision was that somehow it is men's right to have access to nude pictures of women, and that taking that access away is part of an onslaught against men.

And that should tell you everything you need to know about Fox and its understanding of life in the 21st century....

Well, Fox got one thing right when they characterized the Democrat debate as a contest to see who could promise the most Free Stuff without any hint about how it was to be paid for. Presumably they propose to "Tax The Rich (but not the leftist ones)".
---------------
Why do so many idiots believe that the way to solve our problems is to keep voting for the same shitheads that caused them?

Well, the major difference between the GOP and Dem debates - and even Fox News acknowledges this - was that the Dems actually focused on the issues that are important to voters, such as the stagnant incomes of the middle class. The GOP candidates instead used their debates as fora to launch vicious personal attacks against each other, or to focus on stuff that are really not very important to the voters.

That, coupled with the fact that voters KNOW that America's economic troubles were caused by the economic policies of the Bush-era GOP, which haven't changed a bit since then, tells me that the eventual GOP candidate will be in for a rough ride indeed next year.

No. Americans don't know that. We do know that lower and middle class incomes have fallen faster under Obama than under Bush. We know that Median incomes have fallen since Reagan's passage of the first illegal immigrant amnesty program. That the decline in Median incomes under Obama accelerated with his even laxer border policy. The support for Trump's immigration rhetoric suggests a goodly chunk of Americans understand that importing illegal labor drives Median wages down.

Which heartless party supportrs illegal immigration again?

hanuman wrote:Well, the major difference between the GOP and Dem
debates - and even Fox News acknowledges this - was that the Dems actually focused on the issues that are important to voters, such as the stagnant incomes of the middle class. The GOP candidates instead used their debates as fora to launch vicious personal attacks against each other, or to focus on stuff that are really not very important to the voters.

That, coupled with the fact that voters KNOW that America's economic troubles were caused by the economic policies of the Bush-era GOP, which haven't changed a bit since then, tells me that the eventual GOP candidate will be in for a rough ride indeed next year.

PeterZ wrote:No. Americans don't know that. We do know that lower and middle class incomes have fallen faster under Obama than under Bush. We know that Median incomes have fallen since Reagan's passage of the first illegal immigrant amnesty program. That the decline in Median incomes under Obama accelerated with his even laxer border policy. The support for Trump's immigration rhetoric suggests a goodly chunk of Americans understand that importing illegal labor drives Median wages down.

Which heartless party supportrs illegal immigration again?

hanuman wrote:Well, the major difference between the GOP and Dem
debates - and even Fox News acknowledges this - was that the Dems actually focused on the issues that are important to voters, such as the stagnant incomes of the middle class. The GOP candidates instead used their debates as fora to launch vicious personal attacks against each other, or to focus on stuff that are really not very important to the voters.

That, coupled with the fact that voters KNOW that America's economic troubles were caused by the economic policies of the Bush-era GOP, which haven't changed a bit since then, tells me that the eventual GOP candidate will be in for a rough ride indeed next year.

Peter, Peter, Peter, you do realize that all non-Native Americans are the descendants of illegal immigrants, right?

Anyways, to respond to your point, the facts are that the majority of illegal immigrants are working jobs that Americans do not want, and that the agricultural sector in several States will collapse should their illegal labourers be removed. How does any of that contribute to a lowering of the median income? Please explain your reasoning.

I am completely legal. I am a non-native American. My ancestors were not under the jurisdiction of US law. You are so wrong its not even funny. You are not American nor are you a resident, so should be forgiven your ignorance. So, consider your ignorance comments forgiven.

I am an immigrant who broke no laws in gaining my residency and later my citizenship.
As for the jobs illegals perform, a great deal of those jobs are in construction. During the buildout from the housing boom, building sites were heavily represented by Hispanics with very little English. Yes, most were indeed illegal. How many Americans would have worked construction during the housing boom? Quite a few.

Kitchen workers in restaurants are largely illegal. Americans will work there too. I could go on, but don't want to waste either of our time. I would recommend you actually research your opinions of a foreign country in which you neither belong to nor in which you reside.

hanuman wrote:Peter, Peter, Peter, you do realize that all non-Native Americans are the descendants of illegal immigrants, right?

Anyways, to respond to your point, the facts are that the majority of illegal immigrants are working jobs that Americans do not want, and that the agricultural sector in several States will collapse should their illegal labourers be removed. How does any of that contribute to a lowering of the median income? Please explain your reasoning.

PeterZ wrote:I am completely legal. I am a non-native American. My ancestors were not under the jurisdiction of US law. You are so wrong its not even funny. You are not American nor are you a resident, so should be forgiven you ignorance. Consider your ignorant comments forgiven.

I am an immigrant who broke no laws in gaining my residency and later my citizenship.
As for the jobs illegals perform, a great deal of those jobs are in construction. During the buildout from the housing boom, building sites were heavily represented by Hispanics with very little English. Yes, most were indeed illegal. How many Americans would have worked construction during the housing boom? Quite a few.

Kitchen workers in restaurants are largely illegal. Americans will work there too. I could go on, but don't want to waste either of our time. I would recommend you actually research you opinions of a foreign country in which you neither belong to nor in which you reside.

hanuman wrote:Peter, Peter, Peter, you do realize that all non-Native Americans are the descendants of illegal immigrants, right?

Anyways, to respond to your point, the facts are that the majority of illegal immigrants are working jobs that Americans do not want, and that the agricultural sector in several States will collapse should their illegal labourers be removed. How does any of that contribute to a lowering of the median income? Please explain your reasoning.

Choosing to employ illegals also tends to go hand and glove with other labor law violations such as wages & hours violations. It shouldn't be a surprise that those who choose to violate one labor law would choose to violate others but it always seems to be.