Hollywood (The real left media)

Just want to rap about whatever you want and it doesn't fit any other category? Do it in here.

Hollywood (The real left media)

Unread postby FANOFTHEFOUNDERS » Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:22 pm

MSM is pretty far left, but lets not forget Hollywood! When the "War in Iraq" became unpopular and the left wanted someone to blame before election time they targeted the Intelligence Community. Hollywood has been the propaganda arm for the left for several decades, and I do not see it getting any better. Hollywood uses our own dollars against us. If the time comes that they need an anti-war or anti-intelligence movie, they simply call up Matt Damon and say "we are pulling one off the shelf to put the republicans down". The bad thing is we buy their movies, well I don't anymore.
I wander how much money funnels to the left from Hollywood, compared to how much comes from NBC. I bet there is no comparrison, Hollywood by far has more money to bank roll politicians and left projects. The thing that kills me, is that the left in Hollywood are the ones telling us to surrender more money to the government. How much money does every actor and actress have combined, compared to the rest of us? I bet the entire Healthcare bill could be funded if we take their money.
FANOFTHEFOUNDERS
Media observer
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:51 pm

Hollywood (The real left media)

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Hollywood (The real left media)

Unread postby PADMA POORI » Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:01 pm

FANOFTHEFOUNDERS wrote :MSM is pretty far left
The right wingers never get tired of repeating the same mantra. Well O'rielly on the Factor has a huge segment that monitors how much the "other" cable news dedicate to what he deems "stories" then he props himself with pundits that at first compliment him then offer their analysis to support his weakmonitor argument.
Talk radio hosts and conservative columnists will trot out their annual complaints about Hollywood,” and that whole shtick is really getting old. Yet you never see Hollywood begging Washington for a handout, like corn farmers, or the auto industry, or the entire state of Alaska. Second, and perhaps more important, liberal actors know their place: on screen, not in politics.
The right only like the third tier actors like Chuck Norris, Bo Derek and Steven Baldwin that speak their language. They even wanted to change the constitution to allow Arnold to run for president ! Is this just typical Republican hypocrisy?
Palin is financially more successful now that she is ex-Governor she has managed to market her folksy-gotcha attitude all the way to the bank. First by becoming a Fox contributor where all Republican operatives have a standing invitation where thugs like Oliver North and then there is Sean Hannity who FOX allows daily for an hour to present the GOP talking points and openly support all GOP candidates but do you have Orielly even mention that?
Last edited by PADMA POORI on Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PADMA POORI
Media pundit
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:16 pm
Location: CALIFORNIA

Unread postby Japanklet » Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:28 am

Padma, you said that Hollywood has never asked for a hand-out, but that’s not true. They asked for it, but they didn’t get it.

In the early 1980’s, when home video recorders first became popular, Hollywood executives went to Washington and demanded that they put a tax on all blank (that word is important) videotapes and give the money directly to a Hollywood committee who would then distribute it to the TV and movie studios. This meant that, if you wanted to record your daughter’s birthday party, you’d first have to pay off a big-time Hollywood producer for services not rendered. Since the executives claimed (loudly) that without the tax Hollywood would go bankrupt, this was nothing but a government bail-out scheme. Thank goodness, the Hollywood big-shots were laughed out of Washington.

I can’t defend Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, except to say that they dress well. Most of the time.

You said that the right likes only conservative actors. That’s true, but at the same time, the left likes only liberal actors. Just look at how they treated Charlton Heston (just for coming out against gun control) and Mel Gibson (even before his drunk driving tirade). And I’ve heard several conservative actors talk about how difficult it is for them to find work in Hollywood. So it runs both ways.

Sarah Palin has acquired a considerable amount of money via book sales and speaking fees. Same with Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Concerning FNN’s hiring practices, how do you figure Alan Colmes and Geraldo Rivera sneaked past the door? I’ve seen many, many more liberals on Fox News than I see conservatives on MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and that weird channel that comes on my TV at home that nobody else gets. You know, the one that always shows space aliens playing checkers.

Japanklet
Note: To cut down on screen clutter on my tiny monitor, my computer is set to block all pictures that appear in the signatures of other posters. Because of that, I cannot see them nor comment on them. Thanks.—Japanklet
User avatar
Japanklet
Media analyst
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 am

Re: Hollywood (The real left media)

Unread postby FANOFTHEFOUNDERS » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:01 pm

I know people question the impact of Liberal Television on ordinary lives but I wish to share a thought with you and you can all be the judge.

According to most Polls Conservatives represent about 40% of the Vote in America, Liberals about 20%, and the remaining 40% are independents. Having spent a great deal of time learning History, and then relearning true history once I became a conservative I must say that the majority of independents use to be conservative. There used to be fewer liberals in America as well. Assuming my perception of history to be correct it looks as if every decade or so the number of liberals and independents grow and conservatism shrinks.

Now being that most conversions to the left are seemingly along the lines of activism I don’t see it being some sort of grassroots movement that people are identifying with more and more every decade. I am sure that many can see the activism as clearly as I can, after all the left are renowned for picking any cause they find and running with it. The left represent every special-interest group there is, and if you look up the original doctrine of the Democratic Party you will find this as their path for power. So if the left is not made up of thousands of grassroots movements than why are people turning to the left?

My argument is that Liberal Media, including Hollywood do have an impact on the peoples thought process, and they are well-aware of this fact. Even terrorist groups have used violent videogames to interest the youth and encourage involvement in their cause. I believe it was John Lennon who called the youth, “Useful Idiots”, when he was attempting to justify his using his influence over the young of America to spread Communism. Can anyone argue that John Lennon didn’t have any influence on the young? This proud communist constantly used propaganda even in his music, “all we need is love”. How many people have sung this song without even knowing the meaning? You don’t need God or Religion, you don’t need a job or money, all you need is love? HUH!

How much does the liberal media affect our youth today? I saw thousands of youth pass out Obama Campaign Literature during the Presidential Election. Having spoken with several I learned that most felt him a center-left guy who would unite the two parties. Now we all know the then Senator Obama’s voting record, and center was something he was far from. I even found plenty of adults who thought Obama would be a center-left guy. So where did they pick up this idea? Sure Obama himself told everyone how he would “part the waters”, I mean unite the people. This could have easily been remedied my the left media actually broadcasting his vote record.

It is my belief that Obama would not have been elected but for the role of the liberal media. At times they gave him considerable coverage. I would also like to throw out a second role they may have played, and that was in the picking of the Republican Candidate. John McCain was far behind the other Republican Candidates and received very little media coverage. How did the “Maverick” begin his comeback so quickly, especially since in my mind he had far more controversies than many of the others? I don’t know for sure but I would like to look up all media archives and see if they had an influence in his campaign for President. Could the media have seen that even Republicans did not want John McCain for president, and so therefore pushed his candidacy forward? Only a critical study of the archives will say.
FANOFTHEFOUNDERS
Media observer
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:51 pm

Re: Hollywood (The real left media)

Unread postby Media Rookie » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:08 pm

I'll be honest, I only skimmed thru the last couple of posts, but I just wante to add that actors, directors and producers got huge tax cuts in the Stimulus Bill. I"ll provide a link later when I have time to do so. I would like to say that yes in the past we only heard lefty views from people in Hollywood. It always struck me as odd that people put stock in someone's opinions whose job it is to pretend to be someone else, but alas I digress. As it turns out there are many conservatives in Hollywood and they are starting to speak up slowly but surely. Case in point, Adam Baldwin of Chuck fame writes regular columns for Big Hollywood, Andy Garcia participated in a march to protest Castro's imprisoning of political opponents and Sarah Palin has a special coming out on Fox and her first celebrity guest will be LL Cool J.

Don't write off Hollywood just yet, and if you want to see more conservtive themes come out of Hollywood, we must support those projects.
"Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud." - Barney Fife
User avatar
Media Rookie
Media watchdog!
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Hollywood (The real left media)

Unread postby PADMA POORI » Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:51 pm

First of all before I ahead of myself let me thank you Japanklet for presenting your views in a civil and distinguished manner. I guess class & good upbringing does have its merits. We might not agree on certain matters, and we can agree to disagree but in all you posts you have answered I do not see a trace of disrespect, personal attacks or crude remarks. Certain' posters on this site were down right hurling slurs and for every action there is a re-action so I must have lowered my standards to their gutter level and I am not proud of it. I am not great at compliments I tend to give out them far & few in my life.

I was not aware that Hollywood kind of asked for a handout about 20 years ago, I tried to google it but could did not come up with anything significant. I do remember the Hollywood blacklist—or entertainment industry blacklist, into which it expanded—was the mid-twentieth-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals. Its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship (not to mention principle) the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.
A number of nongovernmental organizations participated in enforcing and expanding the blacklist; in particular, the American Legion, the conservative war veterans' group, was instrumental in pressuring the entertainment industry to exclude those of political sympathies it disagreed with.

Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship (not to mention principle) the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.

I can’t defend Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, except to say that they dress well. Most of the time.

If you were offered a wardrobe, you too could be best dresses A - list

Image


Sarah Palin has acquired a considerable amount of money via book sales and speaking fees. Same with Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Ronald Reagan was excoriated for taking $2 million for two speeches in Japan, at a time when the United States was locked in economic battle with his hosts; George H. W. Bush’s association with the Carlyle Group was held up to ridicule estimates of speaking fees for President George H.W. Bush reach $100,000, and Bill Clinton has been lambasted for extracting eye-popping fees, sometimes $350,000 a speech. President George Bush embarks on first speaking tour - and he's getting paid $150,000 a pop and his former secretary of state charges a $150,000 speaking fee.
The only difference is that if you agree or not they all kind of earned it, do you actually feel that Palin who resigned should be put on the same pedestal? I agree with your there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Probably President Jimmy Carter is at the bottom of the list when it comes to making money on the speech circuit.

Concerning FNN’s hiring practices, how do you figure Alan Colmes and Geraldo Rivera sneaked past the door? I

Come on, if you consider Alan Colmes and Geraldo Rivera liberal icons ? I am still waiting for an explanation where Hannity is allowed a whole hour after Colmes departure to spew GOP talking points and spend most of his show as a prop for GOP candidates to platform their issues. Considering that he is being investigated for his Freedom concerts I saw no mention of it on any of the other Fox shows.

I dont have the exact numbers but I see many conservatives on the new channel you mention the ones that come to mind are from the National Review, George Will, Peggy Noonan and many others. They may not be regular but I do see a decent balance.
User avatar
PADMA POORI
Media pundit
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:16 pm
Location: CALIFORNIA

Unread postby Japanklet » Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:02 am

FanOf TheFounders:

(I can’t tell you how hard it is for me not to call you Fanny.) What you said is very thought-provoking. While I would like to believe that the current wave of liberalism is simply the result of the political pendulum swinging toward the left—and that it will eventually swing right again—I’m afraid that might not be the case.

I tend to believe that the exodus toward liberalism was brought about by these three things (in no particular order) . . .

* The well-meaning but flawed education agenda put into public schools in the 1980’s has just now produced a generation of adults who were taught the new “3 R’s”—Recycling, Racial diversity and conflict Resolution—and that the whole world would be a better place if we could all just get along. That generation hasn’t been around long enough to learn that real life doesn’t work that way. The Democratic Party really doesn’t even have to court these people. All they have to do is show them the Democratic agenda, which looks a lot more like what they were taught in school than does the Republican folio.

* The birthrate and (legal) immigration of minorities who depend on the government for help has increased considerably. Who can blame them for voting for the party who promises them the most help?

* I loved George Bush but something went terribly wrong with his presidency. I’ll leave that analysis to smarter people on this forum (meaning everybody else). But the result was that he dug a hole that the Republicans still need to climb out of (even though Obama might have inadvertently thrown them a rope).

* As you supposed in your post, the media is (or are) a lot stronger than was originally thought. Everybody assumed that the financial failings of newspapers, news magazines and network news programs would mean a weakening of their left-leaning message. But the Internet, the music industry, Hollywood, and the cable news networks have more than taken up the slack. The young adults I mentioned earlier depend on these entities to do their homework for them, and (according to research I’ve seen) those establishments overwhelmingly supported the Democratic ticket in 2008.

I think a combination of those elements might be behind the rise of liberalism that we have seen.

I don’t know much about John Lennon, but his was a tragic story in more ways than one. “Imagine” has a beautiful melody but the lyrics are a big turn-off, beginning with the first four words (“Imagine there’s no heaven . . .”). No, thank you. Even Paul McCartney called him a political hypocrite, claiming that Lennon used to call him on the phone and say things like, “Let’s write another song. I need a new swimming pool.”

I think Obama came just at the right time, politically speaking. The country had gone through eight years that included an agonizing attack (9/11), two wars, a slipping economy and a president who seemed to have trouble holding onto the faith of even his own political party. It is said that the Marx Brothers were successful because they made people forget about the depression. Maybe we should see if Obama has a harp in his closet.

Japanklet
Note: To cut down on screen clutter on my tiny monitor, my computer is set to block all pictures that appear in the signatures of other posters. Because of that, I cannot see them nor comment on them. Thanks.—Japanklet
User avatar
Japanklet
Media analyst
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 am

Unread postby Japanklet » Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:04 am

Media Rookie:

I sure hope you’re right about the rise of conservatism in Hollywood. I had forgotten about those stars you mentioned. And we can also add Gary Sinise, Kelsey Grammer (who is considering a political career) and Patricia Heaton. Your suggestion that we support the projects of those stars and producers is an excellent one.

Japanklet
Note: To cut down on screen clutter on my tiny monitor, my computer is set to block all pictures that appear in the signatures of other posters. Because of that, I cannot see them nor comment on them. Thanks.—Japanklet
User avatar
Japanklet
Media analyst
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 am

Unread postby Japanklet » Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:06 am

Padma:

Thank you very much for your kind words. I sincerely appreciate it, and I return the compliment. You have a nice writing style that I enjoy reading, and it’s a pleasure to share ideas with you. Thanks again.

I, too, tried to research the story of Hollywood’s request for a tax on videotapes. I can’t remember where I originally heard or read about it. All I could find was a Wikipedia article about Jack Valenti, who was one of the screen industry’s major spokespeople at the time. The article reminded me that Hollywood had a legitimate gripe about people recording copyrighted material. But I read earlier that their mistake was trying to get the government to remedy the situation with a tax that would be put on blank tapes, as well. At any rate, the deal fell through and the executives went back to Hollywood empty-handed. Thankfully, their predictions of bankruptcy never came true.

Hollywood black-listing was indeed a very sad story. People who had put years into their craft suddenly couldn’t find work because of simple rumors. Fortunately, some thoughtful movie producers and stars managed to secretly give work to their black-listed friends. I think Kirk Douglas (father of Michael) saved the careers of several black-listed artists by not listing their real names on the films’ credits. By doing that act of kindness, he showed he could be as big a hero in real life as he played in his films.

Concerning whether Sarah Palin, who resigned as governor of Alaska, should be placed on the same pedestal as the other politicians you mentioned, I understand your frustration. But, as in any business, your monetary worth equals what people are willing to pay you, even if that sounds extremely unfair. I guess it might help if we keep in mind that many of these speakers give huge chunks of it to various charities. I think Jimmy Carter gives his entire fee to Habitat for Humanity. One famous celebrity (was it Bob Hope?) used to hand the check back to the charity that invited him on the condition that they didn’t tell the press.

I admit that Geraldo Rivera has a few traditionally conservative views—I think he supports the death penalty and believes in a strong military—but it seems that he takes a traditionally liberal stand on most other things, e.g., amnesty for illegal aliens, same-sex marriages, abortion rights, universal healthcare, gun control, etc. I don’t know whether he’d call himself a liberal or not, but I would guess that he would.

However, I’ve heard Alan Colmes proudly declare his own liberalism many times. I’ve never heard his radio show—which is on the Fox radio network—but I’ve heard that he lets his hair down (no joke intended) and is more extreme there than when he’s on FNN. But, again, I haven’t actually heard his radio show, so maybe he isn’t.

Padma, I guess I should tell you that I’m not one of those who claim that Fox News is “fair and balanced,” and it drives me nuts when I hear Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity claim that it is. I’m a conservative and would like to support them on that, but I have to be honest with myself. FNN clearly slants toward the right, and it’s not just because they have so many opinion programs hosted by conservatives. I won’t go into detail about it here, but in some ways, I think Fox News has inadvertently caused harm to broadcast journalism in a way that they didn’t foresee and many conservatives don’t realize.

By the way, I noticed your little Hillary animation. Her shifty eyes make it look like she’s quietly waiting for Obama to make a big enough mistake for her to step in and make her move in 2012.

Japanklet
Note: To cut down on screen clutter on my tiny monitor, my computer is set to block all pictures that appear in the signatures of other posters. Because of that, I cannot see them nor comment on them. Thanks.—Japanklet
User avatar
Japanklet
Media analyst
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 am

Re: Hollywood (The real left media)

Unread postby FANOFTHEFOUNDERS » Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:30 pm

Japan,

I don’t mind Fanny, or a boy named Sue. People have called me worse.

I used to believe that the political atmosphere of America was a pendulum, and the people were the hammer at the end. I felt very strongly for most of my life that this was how it operated, and I still believe that the pendulum swings. The problem I have today, metaphorically speaking the axis of the pendulum is no longer in a fixed position. At least it feels that way to me.

I like the personality of former President George Bush. I myself am a redneck and can easily identify with his charm and wit. People called him an idiot because of the way he spoke, which never surprised me since discrimination usually comes from the left. I am not saying that the right does not discriminate, but we don’t put equality as our platform. Conservatives believe you are only equal in the eyes of God and Law, but when it comes to personal growth you make yourself an equal by your deeds and hard work. When I was a liberal I would use this argument against the right, and twist the words just enough so it sounded like the right didn’t want equality. President Bush made mistakes, but the mistakes people complained about were liberal government expansion between 2005 and 2008. Most on the left complained about the “War in Iraq”, strange that most of the Anti-War movement during this time barely gets coverage on the left today. I personally did not see a problem with the war and still do not. It didn’t matter to me that we never found WMD, despite the fact that we did find several thousand pounds of Chemical Weapons. Saddam was a mass murderer he should have been stopped decades ago.

One thing that helped me to realize the error of my ways while on the left was the principal ideas behind the Democratic Party, versus the Republican Party. You stated “Who can blame them for voting for the party that offers them the most help”. This is inherently the basic difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals promise entitlements, to get themselves elected. Conservatives promise an end to entitlements, to get themselves elected. Besides the obvious, what is the basic difference! For me this means Liberals Purchase their power by bribing the voters, and conservatives force people to become more independent or self-sufficient. “God helps those who help themselves”. Which means God will work with you, but he will not do it for you.

I appreciate the conversation
FANOFTHEFOUNDERS
Media observer
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:51 pm

Re: Hollywood (The real left media)

Unread postby pubjohn47 » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:50 pm

FANOFTHEFOUNDERS wrote: . Saddam was a mass murderer he should have been stopped decades ago.



But war is never the solution since war is like taking a sledgehammer to a delicate surgery as the US govt collaterally killed the very Iraqi children that it said it was going to free from Saddam.


Would you say it would be okay with you if a foreign govt invaded the US because the US govt was invading Native American nations, massacring native Americans and terrorizing blacks during the days of imperialism and slavery ?



Today, by keeping the fear level of terrorism and Iran high enough, the politicians hope that the hard working Americans do not question the yearly trillion dollar looting of hard earned taxpayers money and while the rich and powerful in the military/industrial complex "laugh all the way to the bank, their puppets in the US govt will have to prevent the insolvency of the US govt. by eventually raising taxes dramatically and/or dramatically cutting essential services like health care, social security, medical research, essential research on curing deadly diseases, pollution controls, poisons controls, terrorism prevention, infrastructure maintenance , food safety inspections, utilities maintenance, traffic congestion prevention, gun violence prevention, gang violence prevention etc etc.




Reference : PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINE IN ORDER TO GET THE LATEST UPDATES.
The powerful in the military/industrial complex are "laughing all the way to the bank " while Americans have to forgo a secure and healthier standard of living due to over a trillion dollars being looted every year by the greedy military/industrial complex, resulting in blowback policies that create more danger than safety for the American people
pubjohn47
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:54 am

Unread postby Japanklet » Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:40 am

Fanny,

Your conversion from the left to the right gives you a unique and valuable perspective on political issues, and it shows in your writing. You're certainly a valuable asset to this board.

When I asked, "Who can blame them [poor people and minorities] for voting for the party that offers them the most help?" I meant that I understand why they do it. They do it because they want to believe that the Democrats will deliver on their promises, in spite of the fact that nothing has really changed for decades. They also do it because taking a handout is a lot easier than having to work for it. Unfortunately for Republicans, "tough love" is a harder sell. Many people would still rather be given a fish outright than to be taught to catch the fish, themselves. That's very unfortunate--for them and the country.

What's really scary to me right now is that the Democrats appear determined to finally deliver on their promises regardless of the consequences. Just two years ago, the idea of bringing the upper and middle classes down to the level of the lower class--instead of simply raising the lower class--seemed unlikely to ever be put into practice. It was characterized by the media as a "fear tactic" invented by the right to discredit the left. But now, it appears that the process might already be starting. It's the stuff of nightmares.

Japanklet
Note: To cut down on screen clutter on my tiny monitor, my computer is set to block all pictures that appear in the signatures of other posters. Because of that, I cannot see them nor comment on them. Thanks.—Japanklet
User avatar
Japanklet
Media analyst
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 am

Re:

Unread postby pubjohn47 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:23 pm

Japanklet wrote: They also do it because taking a handout is a lot easier than having to work for it.



How much is the yearly handout ?
The powerful in the military/industrial complex are "laughing all the way to the bank " while Americans have to forgo a secure and healthier standard of living due to over a trillion dollars being looted every year by the greedy military/industrial complex, resulting in blowback policies that create more danger than safety for the American people
pubjohn47
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:54 am

Unread postby Japanklet » Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:38 am

PJ, I'm speaking more in general, philosophical terms, than about any specific case.

It is probably human nature to prefer being given something outright than to have to work for it. That's why probably most people would rather win a million dollars outright in the lottery than to have work a few decades to earn it. I don't necessarily fault them for that.

But the wise person knows that it would be more beneficial in the long run to earn the money. It would cause you to appreciate it, understand the value of it and be more likely to hold onto it.

Last year, I saw a program that had all the contestants who had won a million dollars on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" I think there were six of them--and not a single one of them still had the money they had won. I'm confident that, had they earned it through working, they would've doubled it by now.

Nobody is against helping people when they really need it. Republicans and Democrats simply disagree on what form that help should take. To wear out a worn-out analogy, Democrats want to use the money to buy fishes, Republicans want to use it to buy fishing poles.

Japanklet
Note: To cut down on screen clutter on my tiny monitor, my computer is set to block all pictures that appear in the signatures of other posters. Because of that, I cannot see them nor comment on them. Thanks.—Japanklet
User avatar
Japanklet
Media analyst
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 am

Re:

Unread postby pubjohn47 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:51 pm

Japanklet wrote: .

It is probably human nature to prefer being given something outright than to have to work for it.

Japanklet



So do you think this human nature is also present in the military/industrial complex ?
The powerful in the military/industrial complex are "laughing all the way to the bank " while Americans have to forgo a secure and healthier standard of living due to over a trillion dollars being looted every year by the greedy military/industrial complex, resulting in blowback policies that create more danger than safety for the American people
pubjohn47
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:54 am

Next

Return to General topics / current events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron