Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
Home Help Search Login Register Broadcast Message to Admin(s)


Pages: 1 ... 177 178 179 
Send Topic Print
Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside (Read 400,472 times)
Edith Grove
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline


Disco STILL sucks!

Posts: 11,886
New Orleans
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4450 - Jun 7th, 2019 at 5:03pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Some Guy wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 3:59pm:
Where do you stand on this?



Somewhere around Buckhead.
Back to top
 

“What rap did that was impressive was to show there are so many tone-deaf people out there,” he says. “All they need is a drum beat and somebody yelling over it and they’re happy. There’s an enormous market for people who can’t tell one note from another.” - Keef
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,645
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4451 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 10:19am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<  -------------   GIMMEKEEF   ?!  ....  !!!!!!!!!!!   :







https://www.omaha.com/opinion/sarah-halzack-barnes-noble-can-t-blame-amazon-for-...







" Sarah Halzack: Barnes & Noble can't blame Amazon for everything .  "












" Barnes & Noble had been buyout bait for so long it should not have been a surprise when the company announced Friday that Elliott Management Corp. had agreed to buy the big-box book giant for $683 million, including debt. The bookseller had said in October that it was exploring strategic alternatives. Even before that, smart observers had noted it would be a tempting takeout target.

Still, when the moment came, it seemed to be, if not exactly a shock, then certainly an important turning point. Without a doubt it was a humbling moment for a company that has been humbled again and again by retail's massive transformation.

Of course, Barnes & Noble was among the earliest companies to feel the punishing competitive pressure of Amazon, with Jeff Bezos' ruthless convenience machine putting books on shoppers' doorsteps quickly and reliably. Bezos dealt Barnes & Noble another blow when his Kindle device ushered in the e-books era, threatening to exile the bookseller to oblivion the same way Apple's iTunes doomed Tower Records and Sam Goody.

Given that history, perhaps it is inevitable that Barnes & Noble is a smaller, less influential retailing force now than it was at the height of its powers. But it was not preordained that Barnes & Noble has become as irrelevant as it has.

As one piece of evidence, look at the extraordinary resurrection of Best Buy Co., the electronics chain that also experienced early encroachment from Amazon. Less than a decade ago, many industry watchers were convinced it was destined to crumble like rival Circuit City did. But CEO Hubert Joly gave people a reason to choose Best Buy -- he made prices more competitive, drastically improved customer service and shored up its e-commerce offering. He didn't let the company wallow in the past, ditching its 250 small-format Best Buy Mobile stores, which no longer made sense as the smartphone market matured.

Barnes & Noble couldn't have followed Best Buy's playbook exactly; selling books is simply a different business from selling big-ticket items like 4K TVs. But Best Buy's example shows it is possible for specialist retailers to remain differentiated and exciting in 2019.

Barnes & Noble even had a solid foundation to build on: It was an experiential retailer long before that term became an overused industry buzzword. Its cavernous spaces with plenty of seating let customers thumb through lots of books before settling on a purchase; its Starbucks cafes gave them permission to linger even longer.

Apple, often lauded as a retail visionary, started referring to its stores as "town squares" in 2017, a nod to the idea that it would be advantageous for them to be community gathering places. Barnes & Noble had understood the power of retail-store-as-hangout-spot at least two decades ago. And then it squandered it by not continuing to evolve how the concept was executed and by failing to marry it with a more compelling online shopping experience and e-reader.

Barnes & Noble's new CEO, James Daunt, has some obvious opportunities to steady the chain, starting with slimming down. The company still has more than 600 physical stores. That number could soon prove unsustainable even for, say, Macy's Inc., and the clothing and home goods businesses have not even shifted online as much as the book business has.

Daunt should also further reshape how Barnes & Noble's allocates space in its stores. I was shocked on a recent visit to a Barnes & Noble store by how much square footage was still devoted to physical copies of movies and music. The company has experimented with remodels to condense those areas and use the space for toys and games. That seems like something worth rolling out chainwide, especially given the disappearance of Toys "R" Us.

Maybe some fresh marketing, too, could drive traffic to Barnes & Noble. Millennial parents are often worried about overdoing screen time for their kids. Why not court them with ads that will make them feel like Parent of the Year for taking their children to pick out an old-fashioned book?

Remember, even Amazon, Barnes & Noble's mortal enemy, clearly believes in the enduring potential of the physical bookstore. It has opened several of them in recent years, a somewhat ironic bit of validation for Barnes & Noble's legacy business.

Going private has been anything but a guarantee of salvation in retail. In fact, in several cases, it has been a prelude to grave trouble. Toys "R" Us, most notably, was forced to liquidate after it was crushed by its debt load. Private-equity owned Payless Shoe Source is now shuttering its U.S. stores after filing for bankruptcy; private-equity-backed Wet Seal and the Limited have vanished from the mall.

Barnes & Noble will probably never be the cultural and commercial force it once was, even if it doesn't end up quite those dire straits. It has missed too many opportunities by now. But it still has a chance to write a next chapter that doesn't include its demise.  "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 8:47am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,645
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4452 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 8:51pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ---------- Some Guy   ?!   ..... !!!!!!!!!!    :








https://www.omaha.com/opinion/jonah-goldberg-does-reality-change-ideas-or-vice-v...







" Jonah Goldberg: Does reality change ideas, or vice versa? "









" The intellectual right is in the middle of a huge brouhaha, as some prominent right-wing commentators celebrate what they believe is the end of the "conservative consensus" around classical liberalism -- free markets, limited government, the sovereignty of the individual and even in some cases free expression.

Fox News' Tucker Carlson recently lauded progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren's economic program, to the cheers of a host of conservatives who now consider themselves advocates for something called "economic nationalism."

While I'm friends with many of these people, including Carlson, and respect many of the others (though certainly not all), I think this is barmy codswallop.

But as I've written a great deal about the singular necessity of free markets, limited government and classical liberalism -- recently at book length -- I feel like coming at this from a different direction. This argument really isn't new, and there's no reason to think it's going away anytime soon, particularly so long as Donald Trump is in office and conservative intellectuals feel the need to bend their ideas to his actions or exploit his popularity (on the right) for the ideas they've long held.

Instead, it's worth thinking about how to think about such things.

It's axiomatic that intellectuals like to deal with ideas. Ideas are to the intellectual what paint is to the painter and stone is to the mason. And ideas are supremely important. As the late Irving Kristol said, "What rules the world is ideas, because ideas define the way reality is perceived."

I believe that. But reality -- i.e., the physical realm we live in -- is often what brings new ideas to the fore. We certainly understand this in the world of science. Newton, Einstein and Edison had ideas, and those ideas changed reality in ways that changed our ideas.

Ever since the word "conservative" has had any meaning, conservatives have complained about moral licentiousness. Where they once complained about rising hemlines, they now complain about widespread pornography or celebrity sex tapes. As a conservative myself, I share some of those complaints. But what's often left out of the conversation is the role technology plays in changing how we think about such things.

In the 1920s, conservatives complained about foreign ideas corrupting the youth, as if licentiousness was some virus that escaped a lab in Paris and was brought home by returning soldiers. Left out of the conversation, for the most part, was the fact that one of the great drivers of the rise in out-of-wedlock births (and shotgun weddings) in the 1920s was the widespread introduction of the automobile. Suddenly, teenagers had a much easier time escaping the prying eyes of parents and neighbors.

I have no objection to the claim that ideas played an important role in changing attitudes about sex. The problem is when you think the idea is the sum of the problem. Intellectuals tend to think this way because it's fun to argue with Voltaire or Simone de Beauvoir. It's more difficult to argue with a Buick. These intellectuals become like the drunk who looks for his lost car keys only under the street lamp because the light is better there.

The birth control pill has surely done more to create a culture of recreational sex than all the writings of Alfred Kinsey and feminist intellectuals combined. Good luck trying to get rid of the pill.

Of course, this isn't just a dynamic on the right. One of the vexing problems for supporters of unalloyed abortion rights is that technology -- from in-utero MRI to miraculous innovations in neonatal care -- is making the claim that late-stage fetuses are merely "uterine contents" or some other dehumanizing euphemism less plausible to millions of Americans.

Many of the promoters of "economic nationalism" on the left and right, including Trump, cling to outdated ideas about how industry works. Manufacturing in the United States isn't in decline; manufacturing jobs are, because technology replaces human labor with machine labor.

Even if tariffs brought our factories home from Mexico and China (a dubious proposition), most of the jobs "brought back" would go to machines. Raising the minimum wage certainly would help some workers, but it also encourages employers to replace other workers with automation and other technologies.

Among the myriad dangers in all this is that intellectuals think they can somehow plan and direct the consequences of technological innovation to achieve a society that fits their theories about how everyone should live. That's not easy in an authoritarian society. It's not possible in a free one. "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 9:13am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,645
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4453 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 9:10pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ----------- Nanky  ?!   ............ !!!!!!!!!!!!   :







https://www.omaha.com/opinion/lee-h-hamilton-compromise-is-the-essence-of-our-de...







" Lee H. Hamilton: Compromise is the essence of our democracy

By Lee H. Hamilton "








" The writer is a distinguished scholar at the Indiana University School of Global and International Studies and a former Indiana congressman.

You may not be ready for next year’s elections, but in political time, they’re coming up fast. Even politicians who aren’t running for president are crafting their stump speeches. Which means that at some point you’re almost certain to hear someone announce, sternly, “I. Will. Not. Compromise.” And if you’re there in the crowd and agree with his or her position, you may even join the applause.

Which is understandable, but let me tell you why, far from applauding that line, I shy from politicians who use it. In a democracy, being able to compromise — and knowing how — is a core skill for governing. Shouting “No Compromise!” may fire up the crowd, but it’s a recipe for failure when it comes to getting things done in office.

In fact, it was a core skill even before we had our current system. Pretty much every sentence in our Constitution was the product of compromise, crafted by people who felt passionately about the issues they confronted, yet found a way to agree on language that would enable the country to function.

It is true that any legislative body needs members who set out the vision — the pure ideological positions — as part of the public dialogue. But if they’re allowed to control or dominate the process, nothing gets done. When pushed, most politicians understand that cooperation and working together to build consensus have to prevail in the end.

So why doesn’t it happen more? Because compromise is not easy, especially on issues of consequence, and especially today, when the country is so deeply divided and polarized. Even the word itself causes disagreement. To someone like me, it’s a way forward. To others, including a lot of voters, it’s a betrayal of principle.

Once you do compromise, you’ve always got the problem of selling the result to others. Sometimes, in fact, you have the problem of selling it to yourself. When I was in office, I often found myself second-guessing my own decisions. Did I give up too much on principle? Was there another path to the same goal without compromising? Maybe I didn’t give enough? Is the compromise that emerged actually workable?

This last is an important question. Any politician seeking to forge common ground with others has to weigh whether people — voters and colleagues outside the meeting room — will be willing to accept or at least tolerate a compromise. I’ve certainly encountered politicians who have walked out of efforts to reach agreement because they felt they couldn’t sell it. Or, even more common, who support compromise as long as it’s the other side that does all the compromising.

The thing is, politicians never control the political environment in which they’re working. They have to seek the best solution given the cards they’ve been dealt. They can’t dictate who’s on the other side of the negotiating table, or the political climate in their community.

This makes the kind of people you’re dealing with supremely important. As a lawmaker or officeholder seeking to move forward and faced with colleagues who may hold very different views, you need counterparts who know they need to make the system work and are willing to be flexible. In a way, you’re hoping for politicians who take into consideration the broad concerns of the entire population, not just those who support them or voted for them.

In Central Park one day during World War II, Judge Learned Hand told an assembled crowd, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.” That is also the spirit of our representative democracy, and we need politicians who embrace it.

So when Americans complain about Congress not getting anything done, I have limited sympathy. Congress struggles because it has members who don’t know how to compromise, are afraid to or don’t want to. And those members are there because we sent them there. In other words, we share the blame. "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:26am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,645
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4454 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 9:28pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<   ------------- Some Guy  ?!  ......................... !!!!!!!!!   We must hope and pray The Biden People do not pull a  " Chinese Chennault 2020  "  against The Great Man   ---  President Donald J. Trump  "  PRECIOUS   "  Leader !   ..............  ' Politics Ain't Bean Bag ! ' 1968 --   Why fight and die for a lost cause and the politicians are playing games ?   :








https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0410-witcover-chenault-20180...







" Anna Chennault: the woman who helped Nixon sell out peace to win the presidency .  "



By Jules Witcover







" On March 30, 94-year-old Anna Chennault died. What history will remember her for is the pivotal role she played in Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential victory — a role that, if it had been widely known at the time, might have deprived Nixon of the White House and assured the election of Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey instead.

Days before that election, Chennault — the China-born widow of World War II hero Gen. Claire Chennault of the famed Flying Tigers and a major Nixon fund-raiser — passed word to South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu that if he boycotted planned peace talks in Paris, he could count on the support of a President Nixon.

The Nixon campaign feared that Thieu's presence would result in a deal that would end the war and swing the election to Humphrey. President Lyndon Johnson had ordered a halt in the bombing of Hanoi, also raising those hopes. But when Thieu indeed stayed away, the talks collapsed and Nixon was elected by 0.7 percent of the vote.

At the time, Humphrey had received from LBJ surveillance by the FBI of Chennault visits to the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington to urge Thieu not to go to the Paris meeting. The FBI reported she had gone to the embassy, then to the Nixon campaign headquarters and back to the embassy. But Humphrey declined to make the information public, knowing it was classified, and he — incredibly — doubted Nixon would be capable of engaging in such a nefarious undertaking.

In Humphrey's later memoir, he wrote: "I wonder if I should have blown the whistle on Anna Chennault and Nixon. He must have known about her call to Thieu. I wish I could have been sure. Damn Thieu. Dragging his feet this past weekend hurt us. I wonder if that call did it. If Nixon knew. Maybe I should have blasted them anyway."

LBJ aide Joe Califano later said Humphrey's failure to use the intelligence on Chennault "became the occasion for a lasting rift" between Johnson and his vice president. "That refusal really tore it," Mr. Califano told me. "Johnson thought Hubert had no balls, no spine, no toughness." LBJ himself told Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen he considered Nixon's actions an act of "treason," as a possible violation of the little-known Logan Act forbidding individual citizens to inject themselves into the conduct of foreign policy.


At least two reporters were onto the Chennault story — Tom Ottenad of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Saville Davis of the Christian Science Monitor — and both were shunted off it by Johnson officials, though both made general references to it in their newspapers.

Some 26 years later, for a book about 1968, I contacted Anna at her Georgetown office, and she basically acknowledged her role, saying, "Anyone who knows about these things knows that I was getting orders to do these things," and I so quoted her in the book.

In 2014, Ken Hughes, a diligent researcher at the Miller Center of the University of Virginia, confirmed the story in exhaustive detail in his book on the Chennault affair, as did Nixon biographer John A. Farrell in his book last year.

By this time, however, Nixon had already been undone politically by Watergate, and the earlier affair that could have changed history sooner was reduced to an obscure footnote, demonstrating the lengths through which the man was willing to go to gain power.

Nixon, in getting away with the Chennault caper, may have convinced himself he could do so again in Watergate. "If only we had known," Mr. Hughes wrote. "Nixon wasn't a rogue with a redemptive streak of patriotism. He played politics with peace to win the 1968 election. He did the same to win re-election in 1972 at the cost of thousands of American lives."

The tragedies that marked 1968 were horrible enough, without evidence that the winner of its presidential election did so by engaging in an illegal and despicable scheme to sabotage a sitting president's efforts to end the Vietnam War. Nixon's agent in the matter was known in political circles as "The Dragon Lady," and she long afterward chafed that she had not been properly rewarded for it. What a pity. "






...



...


...


https://www.cricketworldcup.com/video/1240190?fbclid=IwAR0hu3G4q3eCnDyh6pryhs7a9...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 4:41pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,645
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4455 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 9:40pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Some Guy wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 1:14pm:
Grocery prices are going up, up, up, up. Publix is killing me. Maybe more tariffs will help?


Joey?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kirsten-gillibrand-announces-plan-for-national-ma...






...




https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/8-songs-that-show-walter-beckers-brilliance/



Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 11:01am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline



Posts: 14,117
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4456 - Jun 13th, 2019 at 7:34am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Joey, your love of Trump is really bringing the board down.

...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,645
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4457 - Jun 13th, 2019 at 2:03pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
gimmekeef wrote on May 14th, 2019 at 8:49am:
So...Trump wants $15 billion to give to his farm base that are being hurt by Chinese tariffs. Sounds a lot like Socialism to me. I'm surprised the GOP has time for this after working overtime to screw women on abortion and new "free rape' laws here in the dark South.






<   --------------   Gimmekeef     -----   "   Trump's WSJ Angels   "  have now accepted their Pulitzer Prize for sending Michael Cohen  ( THAT FRIGGIN' RAT  ) away to Prison for Three Years   :




...


https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staff-wall-street-journal







...


Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 14th, 2019 at 10:09am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline



Posts: 14,117
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4458 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 6:53am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Joey, you do know other people can see this?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 177 178 179 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Gazza, Voodoo Chile in Wonderland)