kjh Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 WWE responds to Republican Christopher Shays attack with the same tired talking points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 It's going to be yet another fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 One of the recent fanposts: A Little Presidential Fun.. Obama is HHH! He buried the economy just like Hunter buried Booker T! Oh, Lord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Actually, Obama is Bill Watts in 1992 WCW. Had some ideas for turning things around and making his organization/country a leader. But the ideas never had the chance to fail or succeed on their own merits because everyone around him was more focused on cutting spending and their own personal gain. Both also escalated the drug war and gave famous speeches on race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Obama is Paul Heyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Obama is The Rock. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 I don't think any of them would try to work with their enemy in the spirit of partisanship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 I don't think any of them would try to work with their enemy in the spirit of partisanship....Obama is Sting? Huh. Now follow that parallel with Republicans = Horsemen (and heck, maybe Tea Party = nWo), and it actually makes way too much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Now that campaign season is in full swing, it's time to fire this bad boy up again. The story of the moment is the WWE's attempts to intimidate its critics in the media into silence, which naturally has backfired hilariously. From today's Observer update: --There is a ton of Connecticut media both yesterday and today concerning the threat by WWE of a lawsuit against Chris Powell of the Manchester Journal-Inquirer for using the word "pornography" to describe how Linda McMahon made her money. Powell wrote a story today at http://www.journalinquirer.com noting WWE's defense of it not being porn was the PG guidelines and he noted that only came into effect in 2008, and then brought up a number of incidents like Trish Stratus barking like a dog, the short-lived HLA segment (seriously, the minute that clip goes into court the WWE's case is ruined), the Edge & Lita in bad segment. --Linda McMahon claimed that she had no idea the WWE made this threat against Powell in a story at http://ctmirror.org She noted she hasn't been with WWE since 2009. "Yes, I'm still married to the chairman, but really what WWE does, it believes is right for it to do for its own business, is totally what it's doing." --Brian Flinn of WWE told the Hartford Courant, "WWE refuses to be bullied and will not allow our content to be inaccurately categorized. This is not about politics or Linda McMahon's candidacy. This is about protecting WWE's business and setting the record straight that WWE has never been in the business of pornography. --The Norwich Bulletin at http://www.norwichbulletin.com/ on the opinion page said that in their view they wouldn't call WWE pornography, nor would they call it family entertainment. They said it is "crude with a raunchy edge that is clearly intended to exploit sex for purely sensational, and ratings, purposes." They sided with Powell saying, "The threat of legal action is nothing less than intimidation and bullying, and, in our opinion, the company's claims of being unjustly maligned cannot be won on legal grounds. Besides, threatening legal action isn't a very effective means of silencing criticism. Lawsuits are how you make news, not discourage it." --Don Pesci at http://www.registercitizen.com rips on the WWE's strategy here, saying "A journalist who has been accused, however frivolously, of libel, knows he's gotten under his target's skin and likely will keep on probing. And so will other journalists. I can't imagine what the WWE brain trust was thinking when it threatened Mr. Powell." --And the Darien Times wrote, "Let's be fair what that business was about, at least until it softened its image a few years back. It became a multi-billion-dollar empire through violence, degrading women and near pornographic stunts." --Boy that strategy of scaring area reporters to shut up seems to be working out just great. Plus, now WWE on Monday either has to file legal action that will probably get thrown out immediately and suffer a public black eye, or not file action and be seen as backing down. And none of this can be good for the McMahon campaign. You'd think if Linda is talking with Vince, she should have had enough foresight to see where this was going to end up and told him this isn't the right strategy. Anyway, if they hadn't talked about it before, as she claims, and whether true or not, I can't imagine anyone will believe it in the outside world, she needs to talk to him about it pretty quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Yeah, my initial story on the matter at Cageside Seats got picked up by Tom Dudchik's ctcapitolreport.com, largely for the swimsuit photo of Trish Stratus I presume. This was just awfully bad timing on WWE's part, she seemed to have the Republican nomination sewn up, but I guess some people may be second guessing their decision to support her now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Evans Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 That Trish photo was taken before her WWF run wasn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Anybody who thinks WWE is pornographic must be really sheltered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Anybody who thinks WWE is pornographic must be really sheltered.Yeah. The sexual content has always been way, way overstated. Gotta love America; given a crude, violent program filled with hideously backwards morality tales and rampant physical abuse as a way of life, people will bitch the most about the fact that occasionally a woman shows up in a skimpy outfit. And compared to practically everything else on television, wrestling's version of sexploitation is pretty goddamn tame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 That Trish photo was taken before her WWF run wasn't it? yes. Around 98 or 99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Anybody who thinks WWE is pornographic must be really sheltered.Yeah. The sexual content has always been way, way overstated. Gotta love America; given a crude, violent program filled with hideously backwards morality tales and rampant physical abuse as a way of life, people will bitch the most about the fact that occasionally a woman shows up in a skimpy outfit. And compared to practically everything else on television, wrestling's version of sexploitation is pretty goddamn tame. Women body is EVILLLLLL !!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 They'd probably be more accurate in saying it was misogynist, with special consideration for the product a decade ago. I'm glad the "Trish walking around like a dog" bit is biting Vince and everybody in the ass now, but a more coherent and comprehensive argument could be made for so many other examples going back to Ultimate Warrior smacking Sherri around back in '91. "Pornographic" is a buzzword the opposition wants to use with crusty middle-aged prudes who probably didn't know who Linda was before she through her name in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Oh, you all know it was figurative. Come on. No, it wasn't pornography, but the WWF was marketing some pretty risque stuff to children in the late 90s and early 00s, and that is absolutely worth discussing in this campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Exactly. It's no surprise to me they waited until she ran again to open this scab. It's not something I remember brought up very much in 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Words have a meaning. There is *nothing* and there has never been anything pornographic in the WWE programms or affiliate. Even Playboy nude photos aren't pornography. But misogynic ? Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Everything WWE does is a work for attention. Was Ted Turner truly "predatory", as the WWF often described him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 That Trish photo was taken before her WWF run wasn't it? Yeah, I didn't realise that, but it's not like WWE performers haven't taken almost as provocative pictures while working for the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Words have a meaning. There is *nothing* and there has never been anything pornographic in the WWE programms or affiliate. Even Playboy nude photos aren't pornography. Actually by the definitions of pornography from dictionary.com it's pretty clear that on some levels WWE programming was soft pornography in the past: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit. 1. writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement 2. the production of such material Books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality. American courts have not yet settled on a satisfactory definition of what constitutes pornographic material. You're telling me Sable's stripping routines wasn't meant to stimulate sexual excitement in male teenagers during the Attitude era? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Well, it's a rather broad definition. I understand pornography as a more stricto sensu non simulated representation of sexual acts, or at least obscenity. Then again, maybe my definition is more "european", because quite frankly, Sable's stripping routine was not even what I'd call eroticism. Playboy photoshoot, sure, I'd put in "eroticism" category, but really, there's nothing on WWE TV that I'd strictly call "eroticism". I guess the lingerie matches and stupid pillow fights in the early 00's would fall under very soft eroticism. But really, no boobs, no wood. Of course, sex sells, but I think having sexy characters doesn't mean you're drawning into eroticims or and even less in pornography. I mean, I was sexually excited as a young teenager by Sensationnal Sherri's miniskirts and boots. The misogynic aspect is the one to point out thought. The Molly Holly/Mickie James are fat asses angles, Vince making Trish walk like a dog and other humiliating and degrading stuff is way more offensive than Sable showing some skin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Yeah but in a Republican Primary that can only help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 First poll showing Linda could be competitive: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-c...?ReleaseID=1758 Hopefully we get more polls; this is the only one in 10 weeks. I'm very skeptical about the 12 point swing from March. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.