I don't include any text from the article. Are you trying to imply that donating the money changes the influence it has on him? I doubt that very much.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app
Santa and Jesus are white!
- Thread starter witness23
- Start date
I don't include any text from the article. Are you trying to imply that donating the money changes the influence it has on him? I doubt that very much.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
I would think that the fact that he doesn't get to keep the money minimizes how much influence it has on him. My own personal point of view is that since it's MSNBC, who cares? Nobody's watching anyway.
j/k MSNBC fan(s) j/k
I would think that the fact that he doesn't get to keep the money minimizes how much influence it has on him. My own personal point of view is that since it's MSNBC, who cares? Nobody's watching anyway.
The point is they are all entertainers making a buck. You take any of them to serious and you'll be fooled. Next thing you know you'll be taking a comedians word as serious news.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
Good point and you asked earlier in this thread why I'm so focused on Fox. It's an easy question to answer. Only once in my lifetime has one of the major political parties split in two. Whether or not Fox created the Tea Party can be argued but they sure backed them right from the start and helped to fuel their creation. They put them on the map. It all started as a Democrat was taking office as president and we, as a nation, got subjected to ridiculous fear mongering about commies rounding us up and putting us in communes.
And then in February of 2012 Fox made this announcement:
Fox News 'course correction' rankles some - Keach Hagey - POLITICO.com
I guess they figured Michele Backmann, Rick Santorim and Rick Perry weren't electable so they said screw the Tea Party, we're backing Mitt Romney.
They had every right to do that but still, it feels like a backhand, and look at what they've done to the Republican party.
Last edited:
"Only once in my lifetime has one of the major political parties split in two"
Do you believe that this is a bad thing? I don't. I believe that the more people stand up for their beliefs, the better off the country will be. The American people, as a whole, have been far too complacent over the last several decades, not participating in the political process for far too long. That is what has led to the "take over" of our political system by the "extremes".
OK, it has happened during our lifetime. Why is that important? Man is a rather short lived animal. Generally speaking Man sees everything in those terms. If something is during his lifetime that is how it should remain. We see this in politics, we see it in the "global warming" argument. The statement that
"it has never happened in my lifetime" is a common "argument when people don't understand, like or dislike whatever they are talking about.
We are looking at processes that have been going on for hundreds of years. It was, historically speaking, not very long ago that the Republican party was formed. It was a split off from the Whigs, in 1854, they were the anti-slavery "branch".
The process is slow, and despite what "news outlets" say, takes place over many lifetimes. Much of what has led to the "Tea Party" started long before WWII ever started. A lot of what may end up being good, or bad, since Obama has taken over, will not be seen until my granddaughter's children are having their own children.
The "political process" did not end in 1854, there will be other parties, some may take hold, some may not. There will come a time, when the same type of "split" takes place in the Democrat party. Nothing is static. It is like slow, steady moving lava. It will always move, slowly.
Do you believe that this is a bad thing?
I don't. I believe that the more people stand up for their beliefs, the better off the country will be. The American people, as a whole, have been far too complacent over the last several decades, not participating in the political process for far too long. That is what has led to the "take over" of our political system by the "extremes". OK, it has happened during our lifetime. Why is that important? Man is a rather short lived animal. Generally speaking Man sees everything in those terms. If something is during his lifetime that is how it should remain. We see this in politics, we see it in the "global warming" argument. The statement that
"it has never happened in my lifetime" is a common "argument when people don't understand, like or dislike whatever they are talking about.
We are looking at processes that have been going on for hundreds of years. It was, historically speaking, not very long ago that the Republican party was formed. It was a split off from the Whigs, in 1854, they were the anti-slavery "branch".
The process is slow, and despite what "news outlets" say, takes place over many lifetimes. Much of what has led to the "Tea Party" started long before WWII ever started. A lot of what may end up being good, or bad, since Obama has taken over, will not be seen until my granddaughter's children are having their own children.
The "political process" did not end in 1854, there will be other parties, some may take hold, some may not. There will come a time, when the same type of "split" takes place in the Democrat party. Nothing is static. It is like slow, steady moving lava. It will always move, slowly.
Ok, I took it as him saying his name was too hollywood,as in Jewish, and he changed his name to avoid having to use it. Figured he got advice from agents or consultants perhaps to do so. My point was it's his name and if someone wanted him to change it because it sounded too ethnic or something, he should just say shove it. This is my name and deal with it, if someone has a problem with it.
"Only once in my lifetime has one of the major political parties split in two"
Do you believe that this is a bad thing?
OK, it has happened during our lifetime. Why is that important? Man is a rather short lived animal. Generally speaking Man sees everything in those terms. If something is during his lifetime that is how it should remain. We see this in politics, we see it in the "global warming" argument. The statement that
"it has never happened in my lifetime" is a common "argument when people don't understand, like or dislike whatever they are talking about.
We are looking at processes that have been going on for hundreds of years. It was, historically speaking, not very long ago that the Republican party was formed. It was a split off from the Whigs, in 1854, they were the anti-slavery "branch".
The process is slow, and despite what "news outlets" say, takes place over many lifetimes. Much of what has led to the "Tea Party" started long before WWII ever started. A lot of what may end up being good, or bad, since Obama has taken over, will not be seen until my granddaughter's children are having their own children.
The "political process" did not end in 1854, there will be other parties, some may take hold, some may not. There will come a time, when the same type of "split" takes place in the Democrat party. Nothing is static. It is like slow, steady moving lava. It will always move, slowly.
Agree mostly except I don't see a split in the Democrat party happening. I know some think that is a good thing too. That is because it is party first with that crowd. They also think that a fractured republican party is a good thing FOR THE DEMS. It might be true in the short term too, but least the republicans have some dissenting voices that could possible take hold of the party SOME DAY. The Democrat Party: THEY'RE GONE, THEY'RE GONE,MAN.
I believe that the Dems will someday split because of much of what I here around this area, a traditionally Dem stronghold. Many union members are beginning to question what is going on as their traditions are being taken from them, their freedoms restricted, by the very people they voted in. Time will tell.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
OK then, I guess off topic posts and personal attacks aren't against the rules. Oh and I guess we will never see "attack the post not the poster" again from you.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
paullud
Veteran Expediter
The divisions in the Republican party can be viewed as a positive because it opens the door for traditional GOP members to get pushed out and more libertarian members to move in.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
Off topic posts and personal attacks are both against the rules, and you will almost certainly see me type "reply to the post, not the poster" again (that's reply to the post, not attack the post. Sheesh, do you see attacks everywhere?). However, just because you say I personally attacked you doesn't mean I did, especially when I didn't. And you keep saying that I attacked you using something from another thread, but I didn't. So, either quote me where I attacked you, should be a simple thing to do, or stop saying that I did.
Yeah, Stewart's comment was definitely a joke tribute to Lenny Bruce.
As for "this is my name, deal with it," I agree in principle, and in most cases, but there are just some names that don't work well in show business. John Wayne certainly wouldn't have been the same movie man's man if he went by Marion Morrison, that's for sure.
With writers and actors, the Writer's Guild and the Screen Actor's Guild mandate that no two people in either union can have the same exact name. If you've ever written anything for TV or movies, you can't pen it under a name that's been used before, so as to avoid confusion. Same with actors. When Michael Andrew Fox became an actor and tried to register with the SAG as Michael Fox, he found that someone had beaten him to it, ironically by 30 years, back in the 1950s. So, he swapped the A with a J. Ironically, because if there hadn't been a Michael Fox in the 50s, Michael J. Fox wouldn't exist, which is the plot of the first Back to the Future movie, and don't I crack myself up.
Michael Douglas had to change his name to become an actor. He changed it from Michael Douglas to... Michael Keaton.
And the more famous Michael Douglas wouldn't even be named Michael Doglas if his father hasn't changed his name to Kirk Douglas because Issur Danielovitch was too hard for people to pronounce. He tried to keep his birth name, saying, "this is my name, deal with it," and they told him to enjoy his career as a women's shoe salesman.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Do I see attacks everywhere? How would that even apply to me? How many times have I brought it up before?
You know exactly what I am referring to as you quoted it and already tried to half defend it so stop playing stupid.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I'm not playing stupid or anything else. I'm simply asking you to quote me where I attacked you. You are apparently unable to do so.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
I just told you what it was and considering you already quoted the text and tried to explain it away it is very clear that you know very well what I am talking about.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
I'm beginning to think you have a serious problem now. You didn't tell me what it was, all you've told me, several times, is that I've attacked you in this thread. I asked you to quote the attack, and thus far you have shown yourself to be incapable of doing so. Give me a post # where I attacked you, let's start with that. And after you do that, give me the post number where you claim I tried to explain something away.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
How can you possibly have this much trouble figuring it out when I clearly quoted your response and said you were using things from another thread and using personal attacks? Then after you quoted my response and said you could explain how it wasn't a personal attack and not from another thread but failed to do so. Why does this site want to push members away to the other site?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app