CosmicBills

What about Chris Rock's tweet offended you? What was Chris Rock's point in that tweet from your perspective?

The lesson here is NEVER, EVER lose a bet to your brother and let him choose your avatar.

It's a remix!! And this is appropriate considering the OP. Starting at 3:48. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51vFbsZkhXU&feature=related

What I find hilarious is you don't even have the reading comprehension to recall the content of your own posts. Or, you're just being disingenuous. Either way, it's hilarious.

So... you can't give me the point of the article. I guess that means reading comprehension is out. As is logical discussion or civil discourse. What exactly can you bring to the conversation then aside from hilarious rantings?

Quick. In two sentences or less, tell me the main point of the article you posted. Annnnnnd ... GO!

It's about the motion of the ocean, not the size of your canoe....

Never said I was a liberal. Not that you ever let facts stand in your way. Regardless, which buddy's show?

Actually I did have issue with the content. But it doesn't give the article, the source, or its false accusations of being anti-american any more credence. And since this isn't the first time you've posted stories from this source/website/author/nut, I felt compelled to call it out. If you want to be taken more seriously (which we all know you don't... not really), get better sources and leave the lunatic fringe to the lunatics.

The creepy vibe in this post is off the charts...

It's not just the writer that's an idiot. The list of idiots include anyone who actually takes that article serious enough to make a message board post about it. It takes a bigger idiot, or just a 3rdlng, to defend such an article regardless of content.

It had ONE tweet from Chris Rock -- a tweet that didn't say anything negative about America. In fact, if anything, the tweet strengthens it. DonC simply chuckled over it and 17 Again just heavy handedly re-worded it. And again, no where and at no time is Sorkin quoted in that article. No one tweets about Sorkin and no one but the author/commentator even mentions Sorkin. But the headline describes Sorkin as the "ring leader". Instead, he (incorrectly) paraphrases a line of dialogue from a show Sorkin wrote. Without context or follow up, the author bashes it as being anti-american when it's not. It's done to somehow suggest that Sorkin's send up of the media (not the country itself) prompted Chris Rock to tweet about America's history of slavery. The two are about as connected as your frontal lobe.

+1 on grad school. It won't help you at all in terms of a career in production. You'll learn more, faster, while getting paid, by working in the field.

What? You mean a shi**y pinhole camera illegally videoing her through a peephole didn't present her in the most flattering of lights? Shocking.

So you're moving on from defending the piece (even though it doesn't quote Sorkin or contain a tweet from him or any one of consequence bashing America) to this. Show me where, anywhere, I said I agreed with anyone in that "article". Calling an article out for being *****y isn't the same thing as hating America. You're the perfect drone. Based on my internet research history, I'm already on several no doubt.

Sorkin wasn't quoted or even retweeted. Nowhere in the article is Sorkin mentioned other than a raving tweet by someone bashing Newsroom (out of the clear blue sky, no prompting). Again. Stupid article for stupid people. Thank you for proving it.

Yes ... because Drudge is an excellent source of "news". Gimme a break. The only celebrity who tweeted anything was Rock. The rest of the anti-american tweets are from people who aren't famous (unlike what the headline says) and most likely nut jobs. The fact the article takes a shot at Sorkin as being the ring leader when in fact he didn't tweet a single thing is just a low blow and exposes this for the partisan craziness that it is. What Sorkin did do is write a fictionalized TV show ....that debuted 2 weeks prior to the 4th of July. So yeah, it's a stupid article for stupid people.

Holy stupid "article", batman. But it's nice to know where you get your news from. Explains why your posts are always so stu-tarded.

Absolutely -- it's just you'll be up against 1,000 people for one job opportunity there. In LA you'll still be up against 1,000 people but there are hundreds more jobs available. And you'll have more exposure to different sorts of production (sports, features, TV, reality, news, documentary) etc where as in NYC you really only get news, sports with a smattering of features, tv and docs thrown in. It's just a numbers game. You can certainly find production jobs anywhere -- it's just easier to get started out here.

There are only four places to be if you want to work in production: 1. LA 2. LA 3. LA 4. NYC Atlanta and London also have opportunities, but far less than LA or NYC. Getting started in LA is easier than getting started in NYC simply due to the amount of on set opportunities out here. What company did you work for in Reality TV? I have some (limited) connections in that arena.

And yet, she never needs to work a day in her life. And more shocking!

Because it demonstrates how efficient Mitt is. Duh.

No it's not. In reality, that hot chick with the nice rack doesn't have to work twice as hard ... she's hot with a nice rack.