|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 18, 2016 20:50:02 GMT -5
What? If John boycotted North Carolina, you'd have the opinion, that he told his fans to f**k off too? No, that he was just towing the PC Line. But then of course you knew precisely what I meant. I wasn't sure. You agreed that the guy who wrote the article was right for saying Ringo was only trying to be relevant. I don't know how you could say a theoretical still alive Lennon was just trying to be relevant. For all we know, with Iraq/Iran/ISIL and today's world, John could be a most respected political leader. Being relevant has never seemed to be one of his motivations. Mentioning Ringo's interaction was some of his fans just seemed to be an attempt at redirection. And you do know that something is politically correct because most people, people in the political middle, think that it is correct. It's not a conspiracy created by the liberal left.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Apr 18, 2016 23:57:48 GMT -5
I watched an online report by a commentator who suggested that perhaps the ticket buyers should be able to sue the stars for canceling the shows after they already paid their money to see them. It's a disgrace and slap in the face to the fans. What do the ticket buyers have to do with this subject? Why should they indirectly suffer as a result of Ringo and Bruce wanting to look all properly PC? Why don't you ask the Republican legislators who pushed this stupid bill through? The entertainers aren't the problem here.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 19, 2016 5:30:10 GMT -5
I watched an online report by a commentator who suggested that perhaps the ticket buyers should be able to sue the stars for canceling the shows after they already paid their money to see them. It's a disgrace and slap in the face to the fans. What do the ticket buyers have to do with this subject? Why should they indirectly suffer as a result of Ringo and Bruce wanting to look all properly PC? Why don't you ask the Republican legislators who pushed this stupid bill through? The entertainers aren't the problem here. So an entertainer doesn't like a bill or something in a state? Okay.. fine.. make your disapproval known if you like.... but don't take it out on the poor concertgoers. That's like me deciding not to go into work for a week and make the rest of the employees, management, and customers suffer because I don't like a NY state law. Why should the ticket buyers go after the legislators? "Hey, I'm suiing you because you allowed a bill that caused my favorite singer to cancel his show!!" . (??)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 19, 2016 5:41:33 GMT -5
No, that he was just towing the PC Line. But then of course you knew precisely what I meant. I wasn't sure. You agreed that the guy who wrote the article was right for saying Ringo was only trying to be relevant. I don't know how you could say a theoretical still alive Lennon was just trying to be relevant. For all we know, with Iraq/Iran/ISIL and today's world, John could be a most respected political leader. Being relevant has never seemed to be one of his motivations. That's precisely what I meant. You're the one who said Ringo was just doing what John would have done in the NC situation. I responded that we don't know what John would have done if he was alive today, as he was always different and changing his views. Thus, I don't think that John necessarily would have been right there with Ringo and Springsteen on this protest. My mentioning Ringo's disdain for many of his fans was a valid point at his fakeness here. Ringo has said something about "fighting the hatred" with this NC situation, and yet he has often acted hateful to his fans on a regular basis, and according to Paul himself that was a pattern he often followed even when still in The Beatles. He has two peace signs up in the air 24/7, urges "Peace And Luv" every other sentence, and then routinely grumbles and tells fans to "F--- Off!" . Not so. It's all we ever hear about because the liberal left is at the core of the media. How do we know what "most people" think? I'd bet most people are stifled into silence due to fear of being branded. They're called "The Silent Majority".
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 19, 2016 8:32:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 19, 2016 15:39:40 GMT -5
And you do know that something is politically correct because most people, people in the political middle, think that it is correct. It's not a conspiracy created by the liberal left. Not so. It's all we ever hear about because the liberal left is at the core of the media. How do we know what "most people" think? I'd bet most people are stifled into silence due to fear of being branded. They're called "The Silent Majority", and lately they're getting fed up. I hope things change this coming November, but I ain't holding my breath. Political correctness has nothing to do with the media. It's about how we relate to each other. Every single gay, transsexual, ...what have you, issue that we hear about today is always a reaction to something the far right has done or said. If they would just keep their minds in their own bedrooms, and not worry about someone else's, we wouldn't have to be hearing about these issues constantly. How do we know what most people think?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 29, 2016 19:41:39 GMT -5
On Late Night With Seth Meyers last night, they did a news item on the North Carolina boycott and mention that Ringo cancelled his concert.
Seth: "And you better not piss off Ringo Starr, North Carolina. Because remember, this is how he reacted when people were sending him too much fan mail."
They played Ringo's video he had put out on his web site a while back.
Ringo: "This is a serious message to everybody watching my update right now. Peace and Love. Please after the 20th of October, do not send fan mail to any address. I'm warning you with Peace and Love. I have too much to do. So no more fan mail. Peace and Love."
Seth as Ringo: "To all my fans, P**s off. Peace and Love".
(I left out a few Peace and Loves for space reasons.)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 9, 2016 16:36:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 9, 2016 23:18:12 GMT -5
I'm glad. He should be, too.
|
|
cosmo
Very Clean
Posts: 264
|
Post by cosmo on May 11, 2016 15:31:41 GMT -5
Here's what I have to add to the bathroom discussion/controversy : As a woman I have, as Joe suggested above, refrained from speaking out in some forums because I know that people will just label me a "hater" and that will be the end of the discussion. BUT I would like all of you men to consider this - there are many more sexual assaults by heterosexual men against women and against little girls than there are sexual assaults by women against men and little boys, so we women have an iron in this fire that you don't. There is a real possibility that some men with sexual assault on their minds will use the new law to enter women's bathrooms. (And like someone said above, it doesn't matter if it's only a small number - You WILL care when the victim is your daughter or sister). I'll bet there isn't a man alive who is worried about the dangers he and his children might face from women entering the men's room.
You men do not live your lives with the threat of sexual assault hanging over you. You did not have to learn to go to the bathroom or the barroom in pairs or groups to keep each other safe as we ladies all did. Because of this, I feel that none of you have the right to tell me that I am a "hater" because I don't want men in the bathroom with me or my daughter. I have NO (N-O NO!) prejudice against LGBT people AT ALL, but I DO worry that this law, which will accommodate them, will also accommodate the heterosexual predators who will now have free access to the women's room at highway rest stops, gas stations, etc.
People who ignore this possibility just because they don't want to be seen as bigots are closing their eyes to a potential real problem.
And here's what I have to say about Ringo: he should stop being so damn grumpy! He's a Beatle! Of the billions of people walking the planet he is one of only TWO who have that distinction, and he needs to lighten the hell up. I'll tell him that, too, if I ever see him and he curses at me! Watch it, Ritchie!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 11, 2016 16:16:59 GMT -5
You're no "Hater" cosmo(well, except for maybe Heather Mills but that makes you normal and me the bleeding heart!) and I agree that there are security concerns about this law being abused by heterosexual men.
I think as inconvenient as it will be, we are heading to small, single person use public bathrooms even if they are unisex. There will be one toilet and one urinal so just one person at a time.
That will be bad at airports, sporting events, concerts but that is where it is heading.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 11, 2016 18:02:03 GMT -5
Here's what I have to add to the bathroom discussion/controversy : As a woman I have, as Joe suggested above, refrained from speaking out in some forums because I know that people will just label me a "hater" and that will be the end of the discussion. BUT I would like all of you men to consider this - there are many more sexual assaults by heterosexual men against women and against little girls than there are sexual assaults by women against men and little boys, so we women have an iron in this fire that you don't. There is a real possibility that some men with sexual assault on their minds will use the new law to enter women's bathrooms. (And like someone said above, it doesn't matter if it's only a small number - You WILL care when the victim is your daughter or sister). I'll bet there isn't a man alive who is worried about the dangers he and his children might face from women entering the men's room. You men do not live your lives with the threat of sexual assault hanging over you. You did not have to learn to go to the bathroom or the barroom in pairs or groups to keep each other safe as we ladies all did. Because of this, I feel that none of you have the right to tell me that I am a "hater" because I don't want men in the bathroom with me or my daughter. I have NO (N-O NO!) prejudice against LGBT people AT ALL, but I DO worry that this law, which will accommodate them, will also accommodate the heterosexual predators who will now have free access to the women's room at highway rest stops, gas stations, etc. People who ignore this possibility just because they don't want to be seen as bigots are closing their eyes to a potential real problem. And here's what I have to say about Ringo: he should stop being so damn grumpy! He's a Beatle! Of the billions of people walking the planet he is one of only TWO who have that distinction, and he needs to lighten the hell up. I'll tell him that, too, if I ever see him and he curses at me! Watch it, Ritchie! The law is to keep transgenders out of the women's room, not sexual predators. So will they post a guard at the door to frisk women coming in to make sure they are not "packing". If they are going to do that, they still won't stop the transgenders. Transgender women are post-surgery. Why not just make the law that people with penises can't go in the lady's room. At least posting the guard will give lesbians (or guys in drag) a job they will enjoy. If they are not going to frisk people entering, how are they going to enforce this? I guess stop anyone with any signs of masculinity. Maybe they will just add a fine to the crime if a guy was wearing a dress when he busted into a lady's room to assault a lone woman. If you think this law will stop one bathroom rape you are pretty naïve. The law is to stop transgenders from going to the lady's room. Let's not pretend otherwise.
|
|
cosmo
Very Clean
Posts: 264
|
Post by cosmo on May 11, 2016 21:16:23 GMT -5
I wasn't suggesting that the law will stop bathroom assaults. I was saying that if men who identify as women have the right to enter a women's restroom, there will be men who don't identify as women who will enter it as well - because who will stop them? All they have to say is "I identify as a woman and you can't deprive me of my civil rights." Of course, there is nothing really to stop sexual predators who don't identify as women from breaking society's rules and going into the women's restroom to lie in wait for unwary women and children. They are criminals, after all.
I was more trying to make the point that opening the bathrooms will affect women more than it will men, so men should not be cavalier in pooh-poohing women's hesitation in embracing the new normal.
|
|