HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 97 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 24,863

Journal Archives

It's worse than that, really.

What Corbyn did last year to win the party leadership was the equivalent of sweeping every primary. Well, it was a different process altogether, but anyway he won a big majority of a clean and fair election against all other opponents combined, no runoff needed.

If you want an American metaphor for what the putschists are now attempting, it's as if a portion of the superdelegates, who a) used to be in the governing faction, b) consider themselves the only legitimate and responsible rulers, and c) think of the (left) majority as children, were trying to lock 3,000 other delegates out of the convention -- taking as their excuse that it's Corbyn's fault that an unrelated hurricane damaged their precious neoliberal ideology (with help from racists). It doesn't matter that Corbyn was with Remain, or that only 31% of Labour voters (according to polls) supported Leave.

Also, this is coming two weeks before an official report is to be submitted that will very likely provide a basis for prosecuting their beloved former leader, Blair, for launching an illegal war of aggression. This is their last gasp. They are pretty much the most unpopular grouping in UK politics. They do not give a shit about winning an election, they just want "their" party back.

Brexit just an excuse for planned Blairite coup.

No one is more responsible for the Brexit vote than the Blairites who continued the Thatcherist program and created the conditions for an overwhelming anti-establishment vote (though the vote itself was misguided and basically on the wrong question). These people were preparing to wage suicide attacks against Corbyn from the beginning. They saw his election as an affront to their elitist privilege and the neoliberal creed. Brexit was just the opportunity to pretend to have an issue. The idea that the Leave vote was Corbyn's fault rather than their own is absurd.

It's good to see these people go now rather than exploding a leftist government under Corbyn. He should survive the parliamentary challenge (the tough part because that's where this brood is concentrated, they have far less sway among the members), and if it comes to a vote of the members he will prevail handsomely. That is probably why they will not take it that far, if they can't topple him through this present uprising of the parliamentary faction they know they'll lose an actual vote.

With a bit of luck the early part of Prime Minister Corbyn's tenure will also see the conviction and life imprisonment of the war criminal, Tony Blair.

You are assuming that Paulson gains votes for anyone.

Paulson's approval will almost certainly represent a net loss of votes - including among "conservatives" and "right-leaning indies" (precisely the kind of people who despise Wall Street banksters and the plunder of 2008 that the Bankster King Paulson pimped out as a "bailout".

This person's "stature" is mainly as a widely-known villain. He does absolutely no favors to anyone through his endorsement. He should have shut up if he wanted to help Clinton. (It's possible sabotage, though I doubt this miscreant is that self-conscious.)

To call him "conservative" or any other kind of political is absurd. He is a bankster, first and last. He made hundreds of millions as a Goldman Sachs CEO - which inevitably means, for literally starving people around the world - and then paid off by getting into the cabinet and providing hundreds of billions in bailouts when his bankster buddies crashed the world - including the incredible $13 billion to the coffers of Goldman on the AIG deal.

What other endorsements would you like to see Clinton get? Cheney's, perhaps? How about GWB's, straight up? It would be as if you put a big flashing sign that said "The Establishment Motherfuckers You Despise Are United for Clinton." If you really support her, pray that these stupid freaks realize that they should STFU with their "endorsements."

Your post is remarkably naive.

"Financial services" is the flag the pirates present until they get close enough to slit your throat. "Wall Street" long ago degenerated into a self-service fraud factory extracting all profit out of the productive sector. Fuck the U.S. economy, the executives and traders are about their own personal enrichment and they will happily see a city burn if it triples their bonus, just as a poacher will kill a six ton elephant and leave it to rot just for 20 lbs of ivory. None of them even see collective interests among themselves, or give a shit about this abstraction, the "economy." Dick Fuld made $400 million in five years and got to keep it, you think he cares about what happened to Lehman? He certainly wouldn't care about YOU. And these are the predators you expect to back Elizabeth Warren in a moment of rational self-enlightenment? Ha ha ha ha ha! They paid for their Clinton and a nice Clinton who would never harm their plunder operation is what they want, not Warren who is the closest thing to an enemy they can conceive at the level of the Senate.

1) They aren't getting their way, they are losing.

2) They are setting it up for Clinton to do it - and she will, no question.

3) They fear it might not be Clinton in the end, and hope to suck Obama into it.

All as a matter of speculation, of course.

Fucking fuckers.

It is totally conceivable that he said it without clearing it with Merkel.

And he will not be "fired" for it because that would involve the fall of her government, a grand coalition with the SPD. It's not impossible she will rebuke him, but I'll bet she will do nothing of the sort, and try to get by with just ignoring it.

Finally, it's also as you imply possible that she's fine with the SPD guy sending the message, while she hews to the official NATO line of war is peace, etc. In no way does this harm her politically at home.

Meh. You are the one pretending to be image-illiterate.

You'd flunk an advertising or art course if you really didn't see the sexualization in the image. But actually I give you more credit than that. You're just a man (presumably) who insists on being "right" and on having a set of simple principles that answer all arguments.

In any case, may a media conglomerate wrap a giant blinking screen billboard display around your bedroom and flash alternating military recruitment and strip club ads 24/7. Because society can't be arranged for your tender sensibilities and no attention should ever be paid to the aesthetics of public spaces. If you're not paying for it, tough!

They can pick a different image to promote the movie...

That's up to them. Currently they're free to buy space and push any image on people involuntarily. I'm not for content restriction (I'd just take down the billboards period).

There is no context for the image. It is a still. You can interpret the things that it doesn't show or what you think happens before or after however you like: fight, rape, dance, whatever. Doesn't matter.

The actual image is of a male strangling fatally a female in a sexualized fashion. It reflects the belief of the promoters that this will sell the film. It reflects their apathy to the fact that they are exploiting an image of violence against women for commercial purposes. It reflects their apathy to how people sensitive to such images might react. (And no, I don't want to mock every possible sensitivity that human beings might have about images in public. There may be a basis to objecting to images of violence, especially superfluous ones whose only function is to make money.) It does so solely for the profit, without art being the intent. (By definition of adverstising, and you don't get to change that.)

Again, I would prefer that no marketing images be thrust at me on the subway. If works of art expressing a human being's views might depict emotionally disturbing matters, I probably wouldn't mind. I do mind exploitation for commercial purposes.

Indeed, whoosh. So much so that it seems deliberate.

The movie is not the poster. The poster is on the street. The street is the context. The image speaks for itself. Most people don't know the movie and don't care. They see the image, no choice in the matter. They see it because it is an advertisement. Someone paid to put this image in front of them.

The poster is not a superhero movie.

The poster is a public display. Its recipients have no choice but to see it. For a minute I thought your question was going to be, how do those responsible for placing this public advertisement go outside without gagging at themselves for choosing an image of sexualized violence against a hot blue woman with her tongue lolling and so obviously thrusting it at the 90% of the people who don't give a shit about the movie and will never see it. Why do they think this sells, and if they do, why do they do it anyway?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 97 Next »