CosmicBills

You're right ... I'm sure illegal immigrants trying to avoid deportation are lining up to vote.

I never said I disagree with that point. Once again you are putting words into my mouth because you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend my point ... Or you are looking to argue with anyone that even appears to be liberal. What is alarming to me isn't that the guy said that on the news -- there are idiots all over of all races. But what is alarming and offensive to me as a human being is that DaveinElma made a post CELEBRATING the unbelievably racist rant. Defending racism is just as bad, if not worse, than being openly racist. The guy on the news is an ass clown. He has every right to say what he wants, but any decent human would call him out for being an ass clown and not rush online to make a post about how he's being smeared by the media. In reality all DaveinElma did was (finally) expose himself for the racist asshat that many on here suspected long ago. At the very least the guy on the news is open about it, but DaveinElma denies his own racism by saying "Fred Jackson is my favorite Bill" ... Which is the PPP equivalent to a white guy saying "I am not a racist because I have one black friend". Anytime someone feels the need to justify their racism by pointing to their one friend of color is always a cop out. I would respect Dave if he had the balls to stand by his convictions, but he doesn't. He is a eunuch with hatred in his heart and undeniably backwards mentality that has no place in civilized society.

:lol: Just because it's specific, doesn't mean it's a GOOD suggestion. That's just honestly insane logic. I could specifically suggest you standing naked on the boArder would be good deterrent, but that wouldn't make it a good suggestion now would it? A wall is specific but also idiotic AND impossible. A wall does nothing to stop immigration. It didn't in Berlin, and it won't here. It does even less to fight terrorism.

Good luck getting Mexico to do that. I know your industry is hit harder by this than the one I work in, but the solution to the problem will not be found in building a fence or a wall. We can't afford to build one as a nation without using immigrant labor. Private contractors will cost too much and government contractors will cost even more. Hoping to get Mexico to do it for us (or attempting to force them to do so) is just won't happen. There's no benefit for the US or the Mexican government to build a wall/fence in my opinion. It's an overreaction to a (very real) problem without offering any real solution to the problem itself. Both the right and the left know a fence/wall isn't going to happen but both sides use it to stir their base. In other words, any talk for or against a fence/wall is just bull **** the pols use to keep you distracted during election season.

Don't forget, the Kings knocked off the 1, 2 and 3 seeds in the west on their way to the cup.

Holy jump to conclusions, Batman. No one has implied it doesn't swing both ways. But making a post celebrating the racist rantings of an angry, hateful person does nothing to solve the problem. All it does is expose DaveinElma for the racist fu*ktard that he actually is.

There will never be a boarder fence or wall. The only way to build it cost effectively would be to use illegal workers. To do it without that kind of labor would cost far too much. Not to mention it would be the least effective means of curbing the illegal problem in this country. Waste of time. Waste of money. But it sure makes for a good talking point.

Well, at least the black ones are.

Do you drive a BMW? If not, you're no Skooby.

Excellent point.

Sure, you'll meet him in a well lit mall just as long as he doesn't move anywhere near where you live, right?

Did you tell him that you think he's less of a human being based on the color of his skin? If you didn't, then you're not only full of ****, you're also a liar. Your mother must be proud.

Take a bow. You've officially become the most ridiculous poster on PPP. That says a lot. I would say you should feel ashamed for this, but clearly you have no shame left in your poor, pathetic and hateful life. Since it's a Bills site, let me ask you this. Do you cross your fingers behind your back when you cheer for players of color? Or is it okay to cheer for them since they're paid by an old white guy?

So you don't think there have been fundamental changes to the rules of the sport since the 90s? You clearly are without a sense of humor, but are you honestly trying to make the argument that there have not been drastic rule changes over the past decade and change that favored the passing game? Or are you just trying to argue something to argue?

:lol:

Christians. Not Christens.

Hash, though derived from the same plant, is not marijuana. It's much, much, much stronger. Not to mention that the belief that assassin comes from the word hashish has been shown to be a misinterpretation of the Arabic word. It's more likely derived from Asasiyun. As for your real point, I believe that is not only a dangerous mindset for the police, it's lazy. If the only reason to keep marijuana criminalized is because it makes it easier for the police to stop and search anyone they wish, that's a pretty blatant slap in the face of the 4th Amendment. Not to mention a slippery slope to the innocent being arrested in greater numbers than the guilty. So again, it is a ridiculous stance.

Ridiculous. On every level. Marijuana has never, in the history of humanity around the world, caused violent crime. Even Crayonz would agree with that. Go smoke a dube and tell me if you feel like getting in a fight or robbing someone for something other than their bag of Doritos. In fact, if you sold weed at Bills games instead of beer you would see the amount of arrests and fights drop like a stone. Weed does the exact opposite of what alcohol does in that regards.

While I disagree completely with your initial statement that gay characters are being inserted awkwardly into shows at the expense of story, you are absolutely correct that there has been a significant rise in the number of openly gay characters and story lines in television and film over the past decade. You're also correct that this increase is not a mere coincidence. There is a reason for it but it has nothing to do with the "media"(in the conspiratorial sense of the word) attempting to push an agenda onto the public. The truth is there are a multitude of reasons for this seemingly sudden change. And, if you really examine the issue you'll see this change isn't so sudden. It's been a long time coming. First, the people who actually control what makes it to air and what doesn't are not driven by ideologies as much as both sides of the ledger claim. They're driven by revenue which, by in large, is derived from ratings. That means that if there wasn't an audience for this sort of material, it wouldn't be on the air -- at least not on network airwaves. Some cablers have more leeway with regards to pushing the social envelope (the HBOs, Showtimes, Cinemax's) as their profits come from subscription dollars not ad dollars. Which is probably why you saw shows such as Queer as Folk, The L-Word being niche shows that were in some ways ahead of their time. Bravo is another example of a cabler that is pandering to a specific demographic -- but no more than SyFy or ESPN does to their own. But what was once niche has now gone mainstream. And it isn't going back. So you better buckle up and get used to it. The critical success of Modern Family, Glee, and the public outing of NPH to some extent has shown the suits that there has been a culture shift within the American zeitgeist. The key demographics (18-35 year olds) not only have a more permissive attitude towards sexual orientation than their older counterparts, they are the ones that actually watch television. They're the consumer and the market has shifted to meet their demands. It's simply a matter of basic economics to the men and women in control of the purse strings. Nothing more and nothing less. Secondly, and perhaps the more important factor causing the rise in such story lines and characters, is the essence of art itself. While the suits run the business side of town, the artists are the ones who actually create content. All art is social commentary. In fact an artist's number one job is to portray the world around them in a way that speaks to the truth of the human condition and the realities of the day. Finding ways to express oneself truly and in an entertaining fashion has always been the greatest challenge for any artist in any medium. It's been this way throughout the history of drama and literature but perhaps it's never been more true than it is for the medium of television. Due to the immediacy of the medium itself, television has always been a battle ground for dealing with contemporary issues in the here and now. Film does the same thing of course, but due to the slower turn around (18-24 months to write, shoot, edit and release a movie) and the corporate take over of the studio system, mainstream films have a more difficult time keeping pace with television -- today more than ever. The issue of gay rights has been gaining steam over the course of the past 20 years. The issue has picked up incredible momentum thanks in some part to the success of shows that portray gay characters but it has more to do with a generational stance on the issue of sexuality itself than it does with television actually initiating change. Again, an artist's job is to reflect the reality they see around them. And as a new generation of writers, directors and artists take over in Hollywood, it's only natural that they would tackle what they see as a very relevant social issue of the day. That's their job. That's what makes a good story great. It's what makes the audience connect to what they're seeing. From a purely artistic perspective, it's comments like the ones you made in your post "...and even the humor potential, of being a gay knight? " that provides a clear example of why so many writers have flocked to the issue of gay rights. I'm in no way implying that your comment came from a place of hate (just using it as an example) -- but it's a narrow minded viewpoint of the world at large that in no way reflects the truth of the human condition. Instead it only furthers a small minded and negative stereotype of human sexuality. You see the inclusion of a gay knight as an opportunity for humor ("Knights can't be gay! They're manly men!") and you're not alone in thinking that. I'm sure there are plenty of other viewers who thought the same thing. Which is precisely why the writers chose not to go down that path. It's an antiquated viewpoint that has no relevancy in the real world. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time and has never been restricted to a certain segment of the population. Though Game of Thrones is not attempting to portray an accurate retelling of the history of Earth (Westeros is literally a different world), of course there were gay knights and gladiators in the past as well as gay kings, gay stone masons, gay peasants etc. Just as there have been, and continue to be, gay professional athletes (our modern day gladiators and knights) in every major sport. To deny this in art is to deny truth. Which makes for incredibly ****ty art. As a writer I see it as a way to challenge that kind of negative mindset in the viewers. Not in an effort to ridicule or demean, but in an effort to elevate social consciousness. In fact, while you contend the issue was handled poorly in those scenes I would argue they were handled brilliantly. The issue of Laros' and Renly's sexuality was secondary to Renly's quest to become king because it's just not that important. Sexuality doesn't define who someone is, just as race doesn't. Still, everyone close to Renly knew he was gay and suspected he was having an affair with Laros, it was the subject of much conversation at King's Landing throughout the entire first 2 seasons. Backhanded insults from grunts to the more refined (yet still belittling) slings and arrows thrown at Renly by the King's Council. Game of Thrones hasn't run from the issue of sexuality being divisive, but instead has embraced it without falling into the trap of dealing in untrue stereotypes. Renly is gay, he is hiding it from the masses, but those closest to him know and attempt to use it against him. We see the stress it causes Renly and his men. The fact that his bride gets over it instantly isn't because the writers are handling the issue poorly, rather it's such a non issue to her character because she wants POWER. She wants to be "THE Queen" -- so much so she's willing to endure a three way with her own brother and husband in an effort to become pregnant and produce a line. That's not awkward or clumsy, that's damn fine writing. All of us are walking contradictions and we are often forced to make decisions that challenge our own morals and values. Characters in any dramas that are worth a damn are no different. In the case of Game of Thrones, the depth is there. The craft is there. The handling of Loras and Renly's love story was loaded with subtext designed not just to further the story, but NOT to pander to the kind of mindset you're proposing. Homosexuality is not a choice, it's not unnatural, it's always existed and will ALWAYS exist. Treating a gay character as a real character and not a characterization of a stereotype better represents truth. And finding truth is the artist's job. Had the writers treated Laros in the way you're suggesting, playing into the outdated humor of a tough guy being gay, it would do a tremendous disservice to the story being told. It would do a disservice to the characters Martin created. It would be reinforcing negative stereotypes that frankly do not fall in line with the reality of the world as seen through the eyes of the younger generation artists AND the consumers. And thus would not be nearly as popular or effective as a commodity. It's NOT just liberal writers and directors deciding to create a movement, though there are certainly a few of those. In reality the change has come from a combination of a new generation of artists attempting to portray a truth that a growing segment of the population believes is long overdue. If there wasn't growing support for gay rights among the population at large, shows like Glee and Modern Family would never have the type of popular success that they've had. Networks wouldn't air them and we'd have more Klingers as characters than we'd have Renly and Laroses. Which brings us to the third reason... If you look at how gay characters have traditionally been featured on television or film you'll see it parallels how black characters where portrayed for decades. Go back and watch TV in the 60s & 70s and you will see less than a handful of black characters being portrayed on screen. Was this because there weren't any black people in real life? Of course not. It was because the country was less than a decade removed from the Civil Rights movement. It was an explosive topic that mainstream Americans by in large wanted to ignore when they were escaping into the world of the boob tube. More importantly, most of the writers working in Hollywood at that time were middle aged white men who grew up with segregation as a normal part of their lives. In other words, it represented their truth, right or wrong. Some shows certainly tackled the issue ("All in the Family" springs to mind) but most were forced to do so through subtext out of fear of stirring the ire of the network heads. It wasn't until the next generation of writers took over -- writers who grew up in a desegregated America, writers who saw the shows of the 60s and 70s as reinforcing the racial stereotypes rather than accurately reflecting the world around them -- that things began to change. Success of actors such as Poitier and challenging independent movies that struck a national chord certainly helped pave the way by creating more opportunities for writers and actors of color. Of course, the change didn't happen overnight. It was a slow crescendo -- some would say too slow -- but progress was made. Less than 10 years after Fox put the first black president on screen the nation elected its first black commander in chief. Did one thing happen because of the other? No. But there is a connection between the two from an artistic perspective. In this case, artists being at the fore front of a social issue. Even today there are far too few parts written for (and by) minorities in television and film but at least those characters making it to the screen are now portrayed more accurately than they were less than 10 years ago. Now look at the history of gay characters on television. You're absolutely right that TV used to be a "safe place" where the only gay characters served as comic relief or were so utterly effeminate that it crossed into absurdity. It parallels nicely with the way all black characters in film or TV were portrayed to be thugs and criminals (Dirty Harry offering the best example of that) which only reinforced the racist and negative stereotypes of the black community. In terms of homosexuality, writers today are looking back on those shows and characters with the same sort of stink eye as the writers who came the generation before them looked at the issue of racial relations on screen. It's only natural that this new generation of artists are attempting to change the way TV and film deals with sexuality. If the past is any indication, things will only continue down this path until seeing a gay character in a leading role will be as common as seeing a black actor or actress playing the lead ... which, again, is not as common as it should be but certainly happens much more so now than ever before in our nation's history. This all traces back to the reality of the world around us and how artists view it. I grew up in Rochester in a very conservative part of town in the 90s at a time when being gay was a social death sentence for a high schooler. Kids I played football with, kids I consider to my friends to this day, having to hide who they really were and being unable to talk about the issue with their family or their friends because they were afraid of the ramifications. An entire segment of the population silently suffered with absolutely no outlet or anyone to talk to about the things they were going through. Worse, every example of homosexuality they saw in the mainstream media was a parody of a negative stereo type. These kids had no role models, no outlets and no recourse. Looking back on it now, and in relation to the divisiveness the issue of gay marriage is causing even today, it's shameful. That's not what this country is about. This country was built upon the promise of freedom from religious and governmental persecution. Yet, for many older Americans (those above 40 usually) this simply does not apply to sexual orientation. It's the one area left where it's somehow socially acceptable to be bigoted and hateful. But it's quickly changing. Not just in Hollywood but in every day life. For the generation coming into their own right now, this issue isn't an issue. My younger sister, less than 4 years after I graduated, had a completely different high school experience than I did. In less than 4 years since I was there, my sister not only had openly gay friends, but her friend's sexuality were accepted by nearly everyone of their peers. While this acceptance certainly wasn't universal throughout the country, it was when I first started noticing the issue of gay rights coming to a head. It was a dramatic social shift in the youth of my hometown that occurred in less than 4 years. It didn't happen because of things these kids saw on TV or some sort of liberal message they were receiving from the mainstream media -- it was a cultural shift, rooted firmly in the youth of America. It carried over to my college and graduate school years where I witnessed several people very close to me finally come out and finding acceptance from peers. Parents and grandparents had their issues as the older generation always does, but peers? Not so much. The kids in my generation and the one below me by in large realized that sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with who the person is. That feeling has only been accelerated in the generations since. Today high schoolers who are gay have real role models they can point to on mainstream shows. Gay actors and actresses coming out and taking a stand against homophobic bullying has only encouraged others to speak up for themselves. To not live in fear. To not try to deny who they are. It's small minded and silly to assume that the prevalence of gay characters in television or film is somehow "creating" more gay people or corrupting the youth in some way. Instead, it's a reflection of the true reality of their lives. It's only natural that as this shift in public consciousness has picked up steam, the artists within that generation have become more vocal. Artists who grew up in a world where their peers accepted homosexuality more easily than the "man" have reached the age where they're writing novels, feature scripts and TV shows that tackle the issue of sexuality. But, because these artists grew up in an age where sexuality wasn't a big taboo for their peers, they aren't forcing gay characters into their work. They are just acknowledging that homosexuality has always, and will always, exist. Pandering to stereotypes does not reflect the reality of the world around them, it does a disservice to it. This doesn't mean every story or show or movie will work. Some miss completely. But to think that this is all some media driven message attempting to force change is completely false. Do individual artists do this? Sometimes. But again, especially when talking about television or film, if the audience didn't exist for this kind of storytelling, these shows wouldn't be on the air.

And you continue to cut and run from the real issue. But that's okay. It's easier that way.

You're right, I should have said spelling is hard as well.

This should be a fun thread -- good idea, Jboy. Personally I deal with stress with humor. Remembering that, from the right perspective, nearly every situation can be funny. You can either be at war with the Universe or find solace in its unyielding ability to kick you in the balls just for ***** and giggles. Keeping that in mind, as well as keeping the people you love close, I believe you can overcome nearly every obstacle life throws your way. Our time here is short and I refuse to spend any of it yelling at the grass for growing too loudly. Because really, what's that going to accomplish? Life is hard, but to quote a man far more eloquent, and drunk, than I: "it's the hard that makes it great." It's the hard that allows you to see the beauty in life. It's the hard that allows you to recognize pure joy. It's the hard that allows you to overcome. I know it's schmaltzy, but it doesn't make it any less true. Just remembering to take a breath helps too. And, if all else fails, there's a reason God gave us alcohol.

Grammer is another one who's done so well for himself that he has the financial freedom to say anything he wants. I've heard gossip his politics have gotten in the way of a few of his more recent shows not catching on. No idea if they're true, which probably means they aren't. Personally, I think it makes his work in BOSS even more fascinating. He was pretty darn good in that.