Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 147

Hank Chinaski · 10-07-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Please don't out me, although, in fairness, I have done a lot of the heavy lifting pimping his agenda over the last 5 years in the greedyassociate community and as a counterweight to Ty's leftist rantings in the same said community. That has to count for something.

Heavy lifting? AV equipment is usually on wheels, no?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-07-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the link doesn't work. I don't know if the Republicans are directly behind this, but Republican or Demo the DC area is conservative in its culture. Assumption of the risk. You want sex and glam in the store windows, move to Hollyweird.

It shoudl work now. or an a lower case L to the busted link.

It wasn't dems chewing it out it was babyjesusfreaks who probably buy their kids juicy couture.

Gattigap · 10-07-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
If people want to influence W. the last thing they should do is make it public. The more public they make it the harder it is for him to back down. In addition, they less he is going to want to back down because he doesn't want people to think he will give into public pressure.

It is like negotiating with terrorists, if you pay them it just encourages it more. If W. gives into this pressure it will encourage more so he won't.

Does this mean that W will contemplate bombing K Street (or Manhattan)?

Run, Burger, run!

Penske_Account · 10-07-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It shoudl work now. or an a lower case L to the busted link.

It wasn't dems chewing it out it was babyjesusfreaks who probably buy their kids juicy couture.

What's the leverage? A boycott? That's the market at work. Apparently VS wasn't able to convince the property manager that the window drew in more revenue generating customers than it would send away. Maybe whomever does their commercial lease work should negotiate more discretion into it related to window displays.

Penske_Account · 10-07-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Does this mean that W will contemplate bombing K Street (or Manhattan)?

Run, Burger, run!

He should target Hollyweird. And Bezerkely.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-07-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What's the leverage? A boycott? That's the market at work. Apparently VS wasn't able to convince the property manager that the window drew in more revenue generating customers than it would send away. Maybe whomever does their commercial lease work should negotiate more discretion into it related to window displays.

The leverage is publicity.

A boycott is not the market at work. It's an effort by some within the "market" to prevent others from exercising their own independent judgment about what to purchase.

Similar rationale as to why shouting down a speaker is not itself speech, or at least speech of a value worth protecting.

Spanky · 10-07-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If it looks like a Lame Duck and sounds likes a Lame Duck...

Did you see how he got killed in the Senate the other day?

I don't buy the lame duck theory. It had relevence a while back and to other offices but not with POTUS. In modern politics three months is a life time. He is going to be president forever as far as the political calender is concerned (and in the minds of the people that are dealing with him). He will only become a lame duck after his successor is elected and he is two months away from leaving office.

Penske_Account · 10-07-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The leverage is publicity.

A boycott is not the market at work. It's an effort by some within the "market" to prevent others from exercising their own independent judgment about what to purchase.

Similar rationale as to why shouting down a speaker is not itself speech, or at least speech of a value worth protecting.

I don't buy that. A boycott wouldn't prevent me from exercising my own judgment. Ads try to sell a product, a boycott or public protest is just information to the contrary. You weigh the information and make a decision. Of course if there is no counter information that may make you more predisposed to the ads affect.

Spanky · 10-07-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The leverage is publicity.

A boycott is not the market at work. It's an effort by some within the "market" to prevent others from exercising their own independent judgment about what to purchase.

Similar rationale as to why shouting down a speaker is not itself speech, or at least speech of a value worth protecting.

I think it is fruitless and irresponsible to have this discussion unless we see some pictures of the display in question. Preferrably before and after shots. Otherwise, no intelligent discussion can be had.

All discussion should be suspended until the proper evidence is presented.

Discussing Victoria Secret without pictures is an abomination and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Sidd Finch · 10-07-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
W. is a political master that understand that disputes in politics need to be behind closed door, or you lose control of them.

He seems to have blown that this time. If you want to keep disputes behind closed doors, you need to avoid angering your base so publicly.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-07-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky

All discussion should be suspended until the proper evidence is presented.

Fair point.

Slideshow here

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-07-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
He seems to have blown that this time. If you want to keep disputes behind closed doors, you need to avoid angering your base so publicly.

I suspect that he had to, given that the right wasn't addressing the reality that Bush figured he was facing. Pretty sure they ran a bunch of names by people, and the groups kept responding like Penske (perhaps without the sirens): JRB, Luttig, POwen. And WH said "can't do it; won't fly; give me someone else." And eventually it got to the point where the WH had to move because the right wasn't going to give him someone confirmable.

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-07-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The leverage is publicity.

A boycott is not the market at work. It's an effort by some within the "market" to prevent others from exercising their own independent judgment about what to purchase.

Similar rationale as to why shouting down a speaker is not itself speech, or at least speech of a value worth protecting.

Exactly. There’s a soft cultural McCarthyism going on at the moment. Certain self-proclaimed guardians of “decent American culture” are pushing around the other 90% of the country. They never succeed - you can’t fight progression of culture, and this culture will progress, liberally. Perhaps not fiscally liberally - since everyone seems to agree that big govt is money wasted - but very much socially. There’s simply no way the Social Right can ever win. You can’t turn back the clock. Its like that Beatles song...

No, not “Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey.”

SlaveNoMore · 10-07-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

sebastian_dangerfield
Exactly. There’s a soft cultural McCarthyism going on at the moment. Certain self-proclaimed guardians of “decent American culture” are pushing around the other 90% of the country. They never succeed - you can’t fight progression of culture, and this culture will progress, liberally. Perhaps not fiscally liberally - since everyone seems to agree that big govt is money wasted - but very much socially. There’s simply no way the Social Right can ever win. You can’t turn back the clock. Its like that Beatles song...

No, not “Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey.”

"Magical Mystery Tour"?

Spanky · 10-07-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I suspect that he had to, given that the right wasn't addressing the reality that Bush figured he was facing. Pretty sure they ran a bunch of names by people, and the groups kept responding like Penske (perhaps without the sirens): JRB, Luttig, POwen. And WH said "can't do it; won't fly; give me someone else." And eventually it got to the point where the WH had to move because the right wasn't going to give him someone confirmable.

I think Bush chose exactly who he wanted. I don't think he cares what they think, and that is where they are wrong. He uses them for political purposes but he doesn't care what they think. They just think he cares about their opinions because he has convinced them that he does. He has been reelected, he has the power, and he exercised it.