Chef Jim
-
Posts
53,297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chef Jim
-
-
NO, why, have you misplaced it?
-
The funny thing is she thinks she's so much above us but when you read the content of her posts all she is is Richio and Boomer with better grammar. Just a wacked out extremist.
-
Story
No surprise that our foaming at mouth wingnuts are in the minority, but it's nice to see it documented. As if the millions of people marching against the war weren't enough.
Foam on, wingnuts.
So the fact that I'm in the minority supposed to upset me? Sorry doesn't bother me one bit. But I have a question for you. Have you once ever posted a message on this board that was positive. What an angry person you are. Pretty sad. Let's see if you can post one positive message without the words moron or neocon in it. I won't hold my breath waiting.
-
Glad to see the left has a wonderful sense of humor. But most of us knew that.
-
What's up, what am I doing wrong. Firewall is off.
-
Come on folks, let's lighten this place up a bit.
Michael Dukakis 1988: "Tanks in Advance for Your Vote"
-
I'll start with an easy one.
Bush/Cheney '04 "Got Wood?"
-
kerry could have really helped himself with this question by taking the high road and not talking about bush's mistakes or his own mistakes. instead of being negative, which voters don't like, he could have turned the question around and discussed what he thought the president has done right
I was thinking something along those lines. I missed the end of the debate (can only take some much). Wouldn't it be great if either of them congratulated the other on something that their opponent did. It takes a man to do that and it appears that it has been a long time since we had a man in the white house. Maybe it is time we elected a woman.
-
Look what he did in San Diego. Put THEM in salary cap hell and with and they had a pathetic team.
-
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to but it appears that you're talking about what the President has done with our current budget. If you are I said that I was a good convervative, not the President. The tax relief act was a conservative move, all his spending is not.
-
So why don't you voluntarily pay a lot more taxes than you are supposed to or scheduled to or legally bound to, or are you a "fuggin' hypocrite", too? Boomer the mutt-brain suggested that they should just pay more taxes because that is what they want, which is so moronic it's amazing I decided to respond to him. But I did, saying they gladly would pay what Kerry has said they would have to pay (meaning accept his tax cuts for those making over 200K) IF that meant he was elected.
No I'm not a fuggin' hypocrite. Being the good conservative I am, I feel I'm already sending too much money to the government. I'm not complaining about the President's tax cuts. I fell they are working. But of those who are complaining, how many of them are revolting and sending what they would have been paying prior to the cuts. None, I would imagine, hence the hypocrite comment. The government makes it very simple to do that. Nice try Kelly.
-
I think his point was that what are they waiting for. If they would so gladly pay more taxes, they can always send more than they are scheduled to anytime they want. But that would cut in to their Champagne, caviar and limo money. What a bunch of fuggin' hypocrites.
-
Here in California they're trying to change the three strikes law. Anyone here on this board from Califoria please vote NO on Prop. 66
-
My take on that exchange was "Jesus Christ, he has so much money and so many business interests, that he doesn't even know what he owns!" "WTF!"
"He doesn't identify with the average joe at all!" 
. He didn't deny owning a timber company, he was just surprised by it, like he wasn't sure if he does or not. And me being an average joe, that didn't sit well with me. To me it made him look like a filthy rich, pompous, ignorant man. I mean, I know what I own and what I don't own, most of working America does, right? I know Kerry is filthy rich too, but he doesn't come off as a pompous, ignorant man.Don't flame me, those were just my immediate thoughts after seeing that timber exchange, I'll refrain from saying anything about the wood between Bush's ears
.Question for you Tracy. Do you own a mutual fund? Because if you do there's probably a good chance you hold portions of companies such as Microsoft which are paying you dividends of probably more than the $84 that timber company paid Bush. Does that make you a filthy rich, pompous ignorant woman? Absolutely not, makes you a very smart individual if you ask me.
-
In short, the answer is emphatically "no" to the question of are conservatives blacklisted in Hollywood. And, IMO, there are a couple simple, clear reasons for it.
First of all, a lot of the money people in Hollywood are conservative, just not the stars you see on your screen who are 95% liberal (IMO). That is because far, far, far more artsy/creative types are liberal than conservative, and they follow that profession (meaning acting/writing/directing). So naturally, the vast majority of the actors and stars are democrats. The decision makers in Hollywood are business people and money people not creative types, and they are a cross section of conservatives and Jews, (this is of course very general and there are tons of exceptions). Jews often tend to be Democrats, too, but not all.
Secondly, another big reason I don't think conservatives are blacklisted whatsoever is that far, far, far more important than politics to Hollywood people is the fact they are money grubbing whores. I have never seen any single group or profession that is as backstabbing and out for themselves. They will promote anything and produce anything and screen anything if they think they can make money off it (because they will lose their huge paying jobs if the projects they select don't make money). That is why there is so much crap, sex, violence, etc. on your screens, because people buy it not because they want to make that stuff. So they would never blackball a conservative actor or director or writer for political stances if they think that woman or man could make them money. Look at Arnold. And remember, the backstabbers are the agents and producers and executives, which aren't the real liberals you're seeing and speaking of. The scumbags are from both sides of the political spectrum.
The reason for it, to me, is the same reason there is a clear liberal bias in the mainstream media. A much, much larger number of liberals simply choose that profession. Entertainment and Media. They don't choose it because liberals do better there or because there are more people like them there, they choose it because it is creative, it is artsy, it is glamorous, and you can become famous and get hot girls or guys. Conservatives tend to go after business careers. I just don't meet a lot of conservative actors and directors and writers. Again, those are generalizations but true nonetheless.
Gee, sounds like a real fun business to be in.
-
I'm still waiting for Kerry to answer the question posed by the women; "We have not been attacked on US Soil since 9/11. Why do you think that is?"
Kerry responded something to the effect that: "I've asked in my security briefings why that is, and I can't go into all the answers, et cetera, but let me say this to you. Bush Bad. I'm not Bush, so I'm not bad."
What a maroon.
And Chef...
That's what they gotta pay them quarterly, man. I know, you know that. But when you see it coming in, you know some of it's gonna go back out.
But it's the extra amount Kerry wants to tax us that will keep a small business like mine from hiring more people. He keeps referring to "taxing the 2%" and hopes that anyone not making $200K will say "Yeah, let's get the rich bastards."
I'm not rich. I own my own company as an S-Corp. I'm about to hire another person. But I'm waiting to see if Kerry is elected so I'll know whether I can afford it. If he's elected, I won't be able to expand because I'm too small and can't afford to give extra money back to the government while providing this person a salary, benefits, etc. And it'll start with giving back the tax cut I received when he rolls that back.
I wish I invented ketchup. This wouldn't be happening to me.
And how many people in this country are in your situation. And can someone on the left tell me how this helps our economy. These appear to be two very examples of how raising taxes hurts the economy.
And Paco, as far as paying quarterly this really took them by suprise. They've only had the business up and running for probably less than two quarters. Not bad, in business for less than six months and pulling in nearly $100k in profits per month. Tough problem for us to be facing.
-
It all makes sense now.
Now Kelly I have a couple of questions for you. I'm not being an a$$ (for a change), these are questions that I would really like to know the truth to. 1. Are conservative truely blacklisted in Hollywood?
2. Why is Hollywood so liberal. I can't think of anyother profession that is so one sided?
-
The fact that Kerry found out the becuase Bush received $80 from a lumber company he "owns" that makes him a small business owner and that's why he and Dick Cheney are fighting the tax increase because it will harm small business owners. What a crock.
What they are referring to is anyone filing a schedule C or filing as a sub chapter S-Corp and making over $200k per year........not $80! That translates into your local dry cleaner, beautician, contractor, landscape company owner, liquor store owner, restaurant owner, etc. And if you think these people are not making that much money you're probably wrong.
I have a client who started a small business this year and will file under an S-Corp. They are netting in profit in excess of $100k per month! That will go to her and her sister as income and taxed at their rate. They are freaking out as to where they will get the money to pay the taxes. And if Kerry gets elected their taxes will increase by 5%. That's $60k in additional taxes. Guess who is hiring one to two less people next year if Kerry gets elected? Get it??
-
-
No, I'm saying I find it acceptable in colloquial English. And I accept it because...well, because "there're" is bloody well awkward! And barely a contraction at that.
It's not a matter of admitting I'm wrong...because I'm not. I'm the Official Board Arbiter Of All Things Grammatical! I'm a pedantic supercilious anal orifice. You're a chef. Now go peel some friggin' potatoes!
I agree with the there're thing. And by the way, be very careful arguing with the person that could be responsible for cooking your next meal. At your next dinner out...be afraid, be very afraid.
-
I said I consider it an acceptable colloquialism as a contraction for "there are"...so your example is fallacious from the very start, since I originally considered that in my explanation.
And yes...it's entirely because people have been !@#$ing up the English language for so long. That's usually how the language evolves...and if you want to be that much of a purist about it, you'd have to go back to the original Germanic-derived grammatical structure of it, back in the pre-Chaucer days.
How can you honestly accept there's as a contraction for there are? Are you only saying that because you've used it as such and have a hard time admitting that you're wrong?
-
Cheney is hammering Edwards. That said, I doubt enough people are watching this thing for it to make any kind of difference.
The sad thing is that I now believe both of these guys are actually better candidates for their parties than either Bush or Kerry. Granted, its not necessarily because they're all that great themselves (although Cheney is giving a very good accounting of himself and his positions tonight).
That's exactly what everyone said during the 2000 VP debates, that it should be Cheney vs Leiberman for the Pres.
-
"There's" is a perfectly acceptable colloquialism, especially given the awkwardness of "there're". Personally, I consider "there's" a perfectly acceptable contraction of both "there is" and "there are"...and in any sort of formal writing or speaking I won't use a contraction at all, so you'll never see me use "there're".
And what's more, I won't B word when others do it, either.
So what you're saying is that it is perfectly acceptable to say: there's several people on this board..... when if you removed the contraction is would be: there is several people on this board....? Is it only accepted because people have been @#$&ing up the English language for so long? If that's true, it's quite a shame.
-
That sucks. I was visiting with friends over the Labor day holiday and we were talking about Rodney going into the hospital for heart sugery. Rodney's line was "if all goes well I'll be out of the hospital in 2-3 weeks. If not, I'll be out in about an hour and a half." Pure Rodney. I laughed my ass of at that. He will be missed.
Question for you know it alls....
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Ok, let's put it this way. The war on terror will be officially over when there as not been any terrorist acts anywhere in the world for an eternity. That's what Bush meant when he said the war on terror cannot be won. It will always exist. All we can hope to do is limit it's scope.