First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply madonna "i have thought about blowing up the white house"
54651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 1/22/17

redokami wrote:


that

is a FUCKING T H R E A T
I don't care what anyone says, she needs to be arrested
AND THE PEOPLE EVEN CHEERED WHEN SHE SAID IT WTF?http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/madonna-blowing-white-house-article-1.2952443



I would think so, that they'll arrest her the second she said that! I'm betting if it was avenge Joe like you or me saying that. We'll get arrested within a heartbeat!

19306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 1/22/17

qwueri wrote:

Probably because one was a politician with a record supporting women's rights while the other has only his previous actions and words to guess at his political agenda. And it's not just the 'gram em by the pussy' comment that stains Trump's record. If Trump and the GOP had a better record with women's rights laws they'd probably sway more feminists.


Don't know about you, but I would much rather have someone in power and know how he felt about people and issues, regardless of how crass the comments may be, than someone that gives me lip service but treats women like garbage in his private life. You can't champion women's rights and then ignore them when it's bent over your desk and willing.

Posted 1/22/17

redokami wrote:

that

is a FUCKING T H R E A T
I don't care what anyone says, she needs to be arrested
AND THE PEOPLE EVEN CHEERED WHEN SHE SAID IT WTF?


Actually...
No, it isn't a threat. Not to say that Madonna is even close to relevant nowadays, just that what she said wouldn't constitute as a "threat" under the legal term because she "thought" about doing something (and stated that she realized she won't because it wouldn't amount to any good).

I know plenty of people that went around saying "I thought about killing Obama but that shit ain't worth going to jail over!" or "I'm really tired of Bush, I thought about murdering him once or twice" during the respective years they were POTUS. These things were said at protests, at riots, in a bar just two blocks away from the White House in front of friends, police officers, bouncers, military officers... and whoever else may have been around in these situations.

Just because someone else said it on television and they're a "celebrity" doesn't make it more of a threat than the oddballs that said it just as loud in the public realm. This is much like when conservatives got offended by the several "Clinton-supporting" videos that celebrities had made - if their opinions don't matter, why do they matter now? Just curious .. lol
qwueri 
20018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/22/17

Akage-chan wrote:

Don't know about you, but I would much rather have someone in power and know how he felt about people and issues, regardless of how crass the comments may be, than someone that gives me lip service but treats women like garbage in his private life. You can't champion women's rights and then ignore them when it's bent over your desk and willing.



When it comes to politics 'how they feel' is the definition of lip service, what they vote on and advocate for is a big part of the walk. Yes, Bill has some pretty iffy, sketchy, and downright sleazy stuff in his personal life. He also has the political record of advocating for and passing law upholding women's rights. Trump just has the sleazy personal life and a campaign full of derision for any woman that dared criticize him. That's the difference. Between two sleazes (the two never ran against each other), I'd rather take the sleaze who actually helped enact positive policies.
201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Murica
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/22/17


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Jude_Thaddeus wrote:

Out of all the cookies on the INTERNET, and you just have to want to see the one that has a few extra crab shacks and ruffled feathers?

smh


Yes, I also search up gender bender Trump hentai to satisfy my power fetish.

*No seriously, Trump as a 17 year old loli would be HOT


Oh boy
19306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 1/22/17

qwueri wrote:

When it comes to politics 'how they feel' is the definition of lip service, what they vote on and advocate for is a big part of the walk. Yes, Bill has some pretty iffy, sketchy, and downright sleazy stuff in his personal life. He also has the political record of advocating for and passing law upholding women's rights. Trump just has the sleazy personal life and a campaign full of derision for any woman that dared criticize him. That's the difference.


I disagree. It just shows them trying to appease their constituents. It says nothing about their feelings, especially in an election year.


Seeing as how Trump is new to politics and has yet to really do anything in office, it's probably best to give the man a chance rather than base it all on lip service
qwueri 
20018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/22/17

Akage-chan wrote:

I disagree. It just shows them trying to appease their constituents. It says nothing about their feelings, especially in an election year.


Seeing as how Trump is new to politics and has yet to really do anything in office, it's probably best to give the man a chance rather than base it all on lip service


At the end of the day, a politician's feelings matter very little until it starts affecting their voting record and public advocacy. The presidency isn't some internship where it doesn't really matter until he spills coffee on the nuclear launch codes. Everything the president does is scrutinized, second-guessed, and criticized. What he does matters, and what people expect him to do matters. His actions and words affect lives and jobs. Being a newbie doesn't afford him a free pass on his previous record.
18915 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / L'Étoile du Nord,...
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/22/17

sundin13 wrote:

Thought crimes people.

Thought crimes.

YEAH BUT THATS ONLY WHEN REPUBLICANS DO IT!1 DONT YOU REMEMBER GOERGE W BUSH?!?!?!??//

19306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 1/22/17

qwueri wrote:

At the end of the day, a politician's feelings matter very little until it starts affecting their voting record and public advocacy. The presidency isn't some internship where it doesn't really matter until he spills coffee on the nuclear launch codes. Everything the president does is scrutinized, second-guessed, and criticized. What he does matters, and what people expect him to do matters. His actions and words affect lives and jobs. Being a newbie doesn't afford him a free pass on his previous record.


Considering that Clinton was almost impeached for lying about his actions with the so called "that woman", I'd say that it seems a might hypocritical for people to protest against Trump's statements when they couldn't be bothered to do so during the Clinton regime.

qwueri 
20018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/22/17

Akage-chan wrote:

Considering that Clinton was almost impeached for lying about his actions with the so called "that woman", I'd say that it seems a might hypocritical for people to protest against Trump's statements when they couldn't be bothered to do so during the Clinton regime.



For starters, many of the women protesting may have not been born or in elementary school when Clinton was impeached. By that time he was in his second term and well established for promoting women's rights. So again, he had a record that counterbalanced his sleaze as well as reasonable doubt for some of the other allegations that came out later.

Trump had allegations before during his campaign, 'grab em by the pussy', 'nasty woman', beauty pageant creeping, and 'fat pig' among other remarks he's on the record of making. Combine that with a dearth of advocacy for women's rights on his part, and the rallies in response to his presidency aren't particularly surprising. If he has any sense whatsoever he should be reaching out to women at those rallies instead of whining about his press coverage.
19371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/22/17

Gross1985 wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Thought crimes people.

Thought crimes.

YEAH BUT THATS ONLY WHEN REPUBLICANS DO IT!1 DONT YOU REMEMBER GOERGE W BUSH?!?!?!??//


What surprises me most is,
Madonna having a thought.
19306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 1/22/17

qwueri wrote:


For starters, many of the women protesting may have not been born or in elementary school when Clinton was impeached. By that time he was in his second term and well established for promoting women's rights. So again, he had a record that counterbalanced his sleaze as well as reasonable doubt for some of the other allegations that came out later.

Trump had allegations before during his campaign, 'grab em by the pussy', 'nasty woman', beauty pageant creeping, and 'fat pig' among other remarks he's on the record of making. Combine that with a dearth of advocacy for women's rights on his part, and the rallies in response to his presidency aren't particularly surprising. If he has any sense whatsoever he should be reaching out to women at those rallies instead of whining about his press coverage.


That's an incredibly weak argument. By that logic, there were many other women who were alive and active during the Clinton era, and yet no large protests. No, a lot of this boils down to how PC we expect everyone to be now, when in reality, most people are anything but that.

No, I think Trump did try to reach out. He said he wanted unity during his inauguration speech. The following day, there was the Women's March. You're not going to create a sense of unity by rehashing comments said in 2005. Both sides need to agree to disagree to come together as a country.

20757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Texas
Online
Posted 1/23/17
The Aliens got it right.

qwueri 
20018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/23/17

Akage-chan wrote:

That's an incredibly weak argument. By that logic, there were many other women who were alive and active during the Clinton era, and yet no large protests. No, a lot of this boils down to how PC we expect everyone to be now, when in reality, most people are anything but that.

No, I think Trump did try to reach out. He said he wanted unity during his inauguration speech. The following day, there was the Women's March. You're not going to create a sense of unity by rehashing comments said in 2005. Both sides need to agree to disagree to come together as a country.



When you're trying to call women hypocrites for not protesting Clinton, it becomes very relevant that many of them protesting Trump were too young during the Clinton era. But that wasn't and hasn't been my main point on the matter, and it still boils down to their public records played a big role in being treated differently. Beyond that, I can only guess any individual's reasoning at the time.

Trump paid lip service to unity, and his actions leading up to and following his inauguration did little to back up that talk. Hundreds of thousands of women made their voices heard, and I think it's pretty clear they disagree with Trump's behavior and demeanor. If he wants the country to rally around him rather than against him, he's going to need more than a single line in a speech.
22256 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 1/23/17
Seriously, where were you guys when Ted Nugent made a comment about assassinating Obama? And why the continued biased ignorance? I think we seriously need to consider the context and our interpretation of our laws, lest we use the law to fight thought crimes. When have we become so politically correct that we use legal force to shut down opinions that we don't like with laws we don't understand?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.