OCinBuffalo

First of all thanks for explaining in detail...this is very instructive. My response: 1. So...yeah...there is a business angle. That's what I figured. I did a project in entertainment industry. I have found that it's all "my aura says I can't do this today", and, "but that background color won't work for the real artists who come here". So, when you speak in terms of "what an artist does", I've heard it before. And that's all great...until the subject of money, and hemorrhaging it, in the case of that project, comes up. 2. You massively missed the point on the gay knight/humor thing. Completely. Of course the way you described it, and attributed to me ....is unfunny. Clark Griswald was funny...because he was real. I have 3 Clark Griswalds as clients, and they are hysterical. I've even got one's voice down to the point that I can leave voice mails. Why can't we laugh at a gay knight...if he is as real as Clark Griswald? If anything, the way to do it is to both explore it as the reality you described, and troll backward idiots, at the same time. That would be funny...and the height of skill, imo. We laugh at the truth, especially when those truths are irreverent, or inconvenient. Taking the truth out of things, or distorting it, limits what you do. I am pro-troll, so why would I ever want to take the truth out of things? The whole idea is to promote the truth, by instigating the liar into telling the lie in public. 3. You also missed the point on why I brought up Klinger: I said characters like that, no different than the black characters you pointed out, have themselves been "safe" to include...for quite some time. But, thanks for the unnecessary history lesson on the civil rights movement, and the fact that gay rights is being pushed as the new civil rights movement. Yeah, I got it, art/life, imitation, etc.. The question here is: if these roles are "safe" to include...why do them in a way that appears to be forced/shoddy? Instead, why not treat them with the same skill you would use on Othello? You saw what you saw, but what I saw was a hack job...all wrapped up in 4 minutes or less, with of course a nice tit-shot. So...was that supposed to "balance it out". Who's the narrow mind here? Me, or the guy that thinks you have to compensate for a gay story line...with boobs? 4. For the last time, being against gay marriage has nothing to do with being a anti-gay. The objections to the traditional definition of marriage are about the legal conditions inherent to it, not being extended beyond its definition....for serious people. Therefore, re-defining it is a legal question, not a moral one. For silly people, it has been a way to prove that they are morally superior to others. And, various political assclowns have tired to turn this into a political wedge issue, for political gain, and gay people have paid a terrible price for that. This is something, that minus the silly and political assclowns, we could have a few lawyers work out in week. But, that is the LAST thing these assclowns want. If it gets solved reasonably and without issue...what will they use to try to pick up girls/votes with? 5. If writers are living in a "high propensity to meet gay people" area....and that is "the world around them", then, doesn't that affect "the reality of the world around"...them? If not, then doesn't that effect how "artists view it"? Not to be too zen here, but if I lived in Boys Town in Chicago, and was a writer, there's a good chance that I would have a gay character, or more likely a majority of them, in my novel. But, how real...is that? 6. I've been fighting bullies my whole life, in one form or another, so I don't want to hear any whining. There's only one thing you can do with a bully: punch him in the face. If he's bigger than you, kick him in the balls, and then punch him in the face. The trouble is, the actual bullies in this "story" are the ones calling other people bigots, and trying to attack them politically, etc., for doing nothing more than following their religious beliefs. So, what happened? Well, 35 state anti-gay marriage laws later? I'd say it's pretty clear: The bullies got punched in the face. If I was gay, I wouldn't be too happy with the "help" I got from these people. In fact, I'd fire them. 7. 3 times you said "does this agenda exist, does this person do it?...sometimes, yeah, but it's not everyone". That's sound right to me. It happens, but, as you said, $ is king, and if it doesn't play, then that's all. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Hopefully, as goes the way you said, and we get better content out of it. But, they wouldn't have had to make such a big deal about Tom Hanks being the "right guy" for Philadelphia, (which was every bit the eye-opener it was intended to be) and hit us with that story for a solid 3 months prior to release, if being gay was no big deal, because it is part of everyone's "reality". Right? Why do we need a straight guy to "show us the way" and why the big story about...if things are as you say?

"STFU" And certain posters whine about how they are treated here?

This assumes they weren't resentful and fearful prior to Bush doing anything. This is fantasy. All that happened is: the winning of the Cold War euphoria wore off, and suddenly we became a "we wish we weren't so weak, so let's hate on the US, and demand that they recognize us as relevant!" target. That, and the weakest of Russia's surrogates, client states, and largest customers, have been falling, one by one, ever since. The easy ones like Poland and the rest of eastern bloc went first. Now, we are seeing the harder ones go, like Egypt, and soon, Syria, but not without a fight. The only thing the weakness you propose will do: weaken us. We've seen this time and again in history. It's far past time we learned form it. I didn't say be uncompromising. Certainly negotiation has to be part of the plan. But, if we are going to be negotiating, why they hell wouldn't we want to be doing it from a position of strength? See Ronald Reagan.

no, sadly we are not. I had already mass produced my stack...before I hired anyone. So, how it is possible that I needed people to mass produce it? And, how did I exploit people that didn't exist, as no "capitalist company" existed for them to work at, prior to my completion, and mass production of our core and 1st solution framework(health care). As we moved on, I, not anyone else did the job of creating each industry specific solution framework, so, I am also solely responsible for expansion. Also, my sales guys(actually mostly external, partner firms) get a commission for everything they sell. Now, they are labor, are they being "exploited"? Let's say I was merely a brick and mortar factory operation....would the sales people who worked for me who also get a commission on what they sell...be exploited? But, wait: aren't they "labor"? They don't own the company....so....how are they being exploited? Thus ends your ridiculous argument.

What about the above makes you think I'm angry? I'm laughing...at you. Way back when, I was criticized for not using enough emoticons. I see that I've made that "mistake" again. So, here . And, and . There, that should firm up my quota for these last two posts. Come on, you don't think a cartoon of Mt. Rushmore with a teleprompter carved in is funny at all?

The same exit polls had walker only winning by 1%...and some even had him losing. Which means these exit polls are....crap. Methodology problems galore...when you are off by 7-10 points in an exit poll about Walker. There's no way the people who just got done voting for a Republican governor by 7 points...are going to vote for a Democratic President by 7 points. That's just retarded.

As I said, I'm sure the book has the time to handle it properly...if that is the right word. I haven't read the books, no time. I do have time for a one hour show once a week, and, as you stated, this whole arc just looked like it was forced, and therefore, yeah, retarded. Love the show, don't care about gay characters, but don't understand why I'm seeing a pattern of awkwardly handled gay characters in show after show, movies, etc. If there's a business angle, then I can see it. But, it seems like they are just trying to see what sticks, trial and error, shoving it in now, rather than later, etc., and I just want to know why this is the approach. Seems like doing it this way would do the opposite of what is intended, IF there is in fact an agenda. And of course, it's not like the far-left doesn't a have a long and storied history of getting the exact opposite of what they intend.

How about instead, we just pretend that you aren't dopey enough to put anything from this President into a thread that has "best" in the title? Or, we could just say: sure, given it's performance, and importance, we should put aside partisanship, come together, give credit where it is due, and add Obama's teleprompter to Mt. Rushmore?

Can you explain then, why there has been so much...gayness...awkwardly inserted into roles/storylines where it ends up detracting from/adding nothing to the story? Is there a business angle? By that I mean, does it do well in focus groups? Do viewers want to see more gay characters? And, don't get me wrong, shows like Will and Grace made a lot of sense, and were actually....entertaining. So did the fab 5 thing. Project runway was frigging awesome....well, for me. There's been a cultural...safe place? for gay characters....ever since Klinger from mash, and Felix from the odd couple. I'm talking about things like the best knight in Game of Thrones, being gay, but nothing being done with it, and the guy's lover getting murdered before there was any sort of interesting development of that part of his character, other than gratuitous whateverthe!@#$. Yeah the lover's wife knows, and doesn't care...done in 4 minutes, and that guy is supposed to be a king? Now the best knight is gone, hiding, I guess, never to be heard from again. What was the point of making him gay? Yes, I understand that the book is probably different, blah, blah. More time to develop the character, etc. But if this is just a synopsis, why bother bringing it up at all? I would have thought it would be more interesting to discuss the ramifications, and even the humor potential, of being a gay knight? Rather, it looks like it was just prefabricated crap thrown into the middle of the story for no purpose, or to satisfy somebody's agenda. (Wouldn't surprise me, I've had to throw nonsense from on high into perfectly reasonable design specs more than a few times) I don't care, really, of the things on my mind right now, this is down around #483. Seriously. It's just something I've noticed recently, because it's been so pervasive. Now the hit man in the borgias is, suddenly, gay too? WTF? I'm not a big believer in coincidence, and these revelations happened/focus was placed back on it, right at the time the gay marriage issue was raised...again. Then again, I also wonder if writers are just trying to experiment with gay characters, and sometimes it's going to work, sometimes not, etc. Is it just a trial and error thing right now? Certainly, I know you can't just flip a switch and have everything go right, and in order. It seems forced to me, because it's so clumsy.

Yes, with 60% now reporting, it's time for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lULXvuuy7W8&feature=related

Well, now MSNBC is back to bashing Clinton, yet saying that he supports Obama. Wow, that was fast. Looks like the Walker story will not be spinned...merely cast off into oblivion. I wonder if this story will ever be reported again, by anyone in the liberal media. "Scott Walker declared a non-person, film at 11"

Dude, if 10 points holds, never mind 20, then none of this plays, even a little bit.

"Tear down this wall"? Jesse Jackson runs and hides under his bed whenever that speech is on TV.

because poor people are just as likely to have their own private groups where they discuss things that are important to them as rich people?

Not really. I've seen 7-9 figure guys steal just about everything, some of them, and others...leave money with everyone they meet. I think that if you put a guy out there selling balls, they'd just as likely buy them. Especially if everyone else was doing it It's less about the money, and more about the convenience. Now, if you did it for charity, and simply covered the cost of the balls.....man, they'd all buy them, because I've never seen a guy like that, moral or immoral, miss an opportunity to expense something/write it off. I imagine that if you went to the local public course, you'd see people stealing along the same patterns. Morality has no relationship to money, for every poor Good Samaritan, you are just as likely to find a rich one. That I do know, because that, I have seen.

Well, if we consider that his ideas and name have been invoked for things that are either partially, or completely, contradictions of his theories...to the point that he has been redefined by these people, then yeah. One trouble with being a liberal is: other liberals can get away with revising your history, and there's nobody to care, or stop them, or even point it out. For example, check this out: Completely edited history of Obama Vs. Hillary...embedded in "Bill Clinton is nuts(cause he just blew up Barry's campaign strategy) Now, I don't remember Bill Clinton bringing up race in South Carolina...until an Obama surrogate did. But, now, since it helps Obama to turn Clinton into a nut, because Clinton is, wisely, doing whatever he can to ensure that Democrats don't lose for the next 20 years? Out comes the historical revision. It's so pathetic.

Um, Gettysburg address? Doesn't that blow away all others for all time?

Well now Hannity is on...so it's all hack, all the time. Meanwhile, "Pat" on MSNBC is running clips of "loud noises" on MSNBC. So yeah, we're getting nothing.

Oh I love it when they call me a liar. See, I have to care, in order to lie. Why bother otherwise? I don't care, so I have 0 reason to lie. I'm not the one trying to impress people with my pretentious game, and my adventures in it, remember? They are. All I was, was a guy who happened to live above a blue blooded, ex-stock broker/SEC-banned stock broker, now full-time caddy, and all-time alcoholic...whose blue blooded family got him the job at Pine Valley. Yeah. It really started out as silly as all that. I would never piss in a fairway. That's just classless. But, I didn't get a chance to go before I went out...again, work, and so, I had to piss in the trees. Well...behind one. Look when you got to go, etc. But, you'd think I took a dump on the steps of the Capitol the way some people lose their schit over that. Don't tell me you've never "lost your ball" and took a leak.

How much money does Jack Daniels make....compared to moonshiners? Why would Pfizer cocaine be any different? Do you really think the jackass on the corner, or the series of jackasses leading up to him, can compete with our pharma companies on quality or price? Please. Never mind the fact that you can sue the hell out of them, if they don't deliver the goods? Who should we see if they guy on the corner cuts his stuff with draino? Yeah, there goes that emotional argument disguised to look factual. The fact that mommy, daddy?, whoever, is an idiot, has nothing to do with whether drugs are legal or not. Case in point: people that can't get a hold of Jack Daniels, find a way to get a hold of sterno. Now, should we make sterno illegal, because some clown drinks that? Why not? Clearly drinking sterno is just as bad for you as any poorly cut/made drugs. The fact that somebody would even consider drinking sterno, shows that Jack Daniels, or moonshine is not the problem. The problem is the person.

No, I haven't. Your first mistake is assuming that the "insiders" are anything other than crass and indiscreet. Why do you think they like me so much? Seriously, as I said above, I wasn't an insider, nor did I have any wish to be, or illusions that I was. I was there because I was asked to be, and certainly not because I was interested in genuflecting my way inside. Normatively, moving around with these people was no different than moving around in the sewer I was in once...I was there because of the job. Which one to tell...hmmm. How about this? Are you a golfer? Perhaps I should tell you about Pine Valley? Now, before I do, understand, it pisses most "real" golfers off. The stories do, but not as much, as the very indiscreet and, completely irreverent way I tell them. The "I took a piss on the third hole" is always good for lulz. I couldn't care less about their pretentious little game, and, as member of one club or another most of my life, I usually have just as much if not more reason to be pretentious about it than they do. At the very least, it's not like I have no context. That's why it's fun to tell the Pine Valley stories: I've done something multiple times, that "serious golfers who respect the game" couldn't care more about, but will never do, and I...couldn't care less. Now, to cut to the conclusion without telling the story: If I told these serious golfers....that they could play Pine Valley once a year, but, while they could tell people where they were going, they weren't allowed to talk about what happened? Yeah, they'd all sign up immediately, and do whatever they could to make sure there wasn't even a hint of them mouthing off. But then, they'd be in the game, and then, somebody would ask them if they like the mahi mahi sandwich at the clubhouse at Pebble Beach....

Remember what? That I don't allow Euro-nonsense foreign policy delusions to be spewed on this board unchallenged? Look, the simple fact is you are digging for compliments for Obama with this. As if these "leaders" you speak of are ignoring Obama, and allowing him to drone strike scumbags, by Obama's design? It's all part of a larger, Obama foreign policy gambit? Please. They are ignoring him because they don't want anything to do with him. He's got nothing to offer them politically, other than to tell them to stop spending so much money, which he already did. They don't want to hear that, and they know he's a lame duck, so they are just trying to stay as far away as possible. I don't blame them. It's the only sensible thing to do politically, and as GG said, they have their own problems to think about.

While I agree with the premise, this is not the argument that convinces, or ends their stupidity. We don't need one emotional argument to refute another. This is no different than putting the editors of High Times in charge of the message. The best way to end the argument is to simply ask these people why they are in favor of providing criminals a multi-billion $ vehicle to gain money, power, and the ability to corrupt our government and ruin lives, while spending mutli-billion $ countering the effects/treating the symptoms of the vehicle they created. They will try to wriggle out of it, but this is the central issue here. Don't distract. It's more fun to watch them wriggle.

He's doing it without outrage, because these tools are f'ing hypocrites of the first order. That, and now that they've been proven to be wrong...so many times...they've exhausted their cries of wolf(waterboard). And, at this point, they'd rather have the people in their countries forget their association with Obama, because they know he's about to go down, hard. Better to say nothing about him at all, than be identified with a known, political, loser, or remind people that you said he was going to be so awesome, even if now you are criticizing him. Finally, these people don't know Romney, but they think they do, and if they are running around criticizing Obama for drone strikes, they won't have anything to criticize Romney for, if he is does the same exact thing. We're on to these turds, and their endless "we won't pay to protect ourselves, and chances are we couldn't raise more than 10 divisions of soldiers from our aging, weak populace, even if we included gays and women. With only 2 of them being combat effective. We are so insecure about that, and wish so much that we were still relevant to the world, that we will irrationally criticize the US, because...WTF else are we gonna do? Admit that we are weak? No. We'll be like DeGaulle, and say that we won WW2, and that we're the ones winning the terror war, because we are more engaged with the terrorists, and willing to talk with them" delusions of grandeur. Silly "western leaders". These are the people that gave Obama a Nobel prize...for enabling their delusions, and you want to praise Obama....for that? Edit: the racist thing is precisely as ridiculous as the "tempered outrage thing"...which is why I said it.

Or, with more international fear of being called a racist, we'll have more domestic fear of being called a racist. This is idiotic and so is what you wrote above. So, yeah, busted. Is Obama consulting with "western leaders" before saying "shoot"? Yeah, I'm so sure that he's calling up the French, or the people in Oslo, and "eastern leaders" and explaining to them that he's about to kill a guy, and then, order a second shot when the rest of the guys show up, because....it's in line with his speech in 2009? Please. Busted. GTFO with this nonsense. On separate note, how ironic is the "second shot"? It's using terror tactics against them: they love to blow up a bomb, and then, when the 1st responders show up, blow up another one. We do the same, but with 2nd helping of Hellfire.