# "Newsroom" HBO



## CrusaderFrank

Saw it last night. Another show by "West Wing" creator Sorkin. 

It's a newsroom that, gosh darn it, is sick and tired of news that depresses you. It wants to make a difference-- like when Murrow took out McCarthy (for correctly and presciently saying that US State and the WH was a nest of Soviet spies) or how Cronkite (sided with the NVA after we had inflicted probably the worst defeat on an enemy since the Soviets retook Stalingrad to) successfully turn American people against Vietnam.

I loved Jeff Daniels performance. He's the grizzled old anchor who needs to redirect himself. While appearing on a panel with a Liberal and Conservative commentator, a student from the audience asked the panel "What makes America the greatest nation" and the Liberal says "Diversity" the Conservative say "Freedom" and Jeff Daniels lights into the student in a 5 minute diatribe calling her stupid for thinking that American is great.

They handle the Deep Water Horizon in real time and it's interesting to see how it all comes together to make a news broadcast.  The take away was Halliburton is evil and we need more government regulation.

At some point the Liberal spew is going to make me miss Jeff Daniels as an actor and that will be my loss but Liberals should learn that alienating half your potential audience by showing anyone to the right of Mao as evil and/or stupid will give you a NYTimes-like the Double Black Diamond chart of viewship.

I'll watch the next episode


----------



## hjmick

It sure as hell wasn't _The West Wing_, a show I enjoyed thoroughly.

I'll watch another episode or two, give it a chance to grow, but my initial impression is, what a load of hooey.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

They have a real bizzare view of what motivates Conservatives, they had the Conservative commentator (you know the actor must have been apologizing to everyone saying, "it's just a role, I don't believe any of this!") talk about the NEA.

Sweet fucking Jesus with a $1.3 Trillion annual deficits and you think the NEA is the problem?  That's Rdean stupid


----------



## strollingbones

fell asleep after about 10 minutes of it......

too stale for me....too predictable so far...well the first 10 minutes lol


----------



## CrusaderFrank

strollingbones said:


> fell asleep after about 10 minutes of it......
> 
> too stale for me....too predictable so far...well the first 10 minutes lol



700+ pages into Book V and I get a headache from trying to follow all the new characters


----------



## strollingbones

stop that....still havent gotten book v from son....he keeps saying he is about finished


----------



## CrusaderFrank

strollingbones said:


> stop that....still havent gotten book v from son....he keeps saying he is about finished



I didn't realize how close to the end of Book V I am...I keep forgetting that he has the list of characters in the back that now takes up about 150 pages


----------



## strollingbones

i know you prefer simpler sagas like the hobbit and all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

strollingbones said:


> i know you prefer simpler sagas like the hobbit and all.



I do.  

It's fun and memorable, I still like Thorin Oakenshield's death scene with Bilbo. I'm not a big fan of killing off all the main characters I like.

Martin would have killed off Bilbo, Gandalf and most of the dwarves -- but we'd have 500 pages of Tom Bombadils sister who lived in a far away land and married a merchant named a's;dfqweasdfawef no a's;dfqweasdfawe and became Queen


----------



## Flopper

Sounds interesting, I'll watch for it.

Saw a BBC series called the Hour about an hour long TV news program set in the 1950's. Lot's of spy stuff but not the crash bang type so common today.


----------



## dblack

I thought it was quite good. Jeff Daniels has been a favorite of mine since "Terms of Endearment" - (and of course "Dumb and Dumber" ). The tirade at the beginning was perfect. The politics are bound to annoy me at some point, but hopefully they focus on calling out hypocrisy rather than taking sides.


----------



## chanel

I liked it.  I thought Jeff Daniels was great and thought it was fascinating how they put these breaking stories together in real time.  

If it gets too preachy, I  will probably stop watching, but I did like West Wing despite it's leftist slant.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

chanel said:


> I liked it.  I thought Jeff Daniels was great and thought it was fascinating how they put these breaking stories together in real time.
> 
> If it gets too preachy, I  will probably stop watching, but I did like West Wing despite it's leftist slant.



It was a Liberal Wet Dream of how the LA explosion should have been handled. 

I wonder what they do next?


----------



## strollingbones

come on frankie.....this liberals wet dreams are all about you......


----------



## strollingbones

i tried to watch it again ....fell asleep again......maybe its just me....i have never been a fan of the actor.....


----------



## Truthmatters

Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.

Cons wont like this show.

It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.


Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is


----------



## Sarah G

I've loved Jeff Daniels ever since he played Flap in Terms of Endearment..  Just love him.  Everything except Dumb and Dumber, I'll never figure out what possessed him to do that movie.

Newsroom was riveting, imo, can't wait to see what's next.


----------



## Truthmatters

I teared up at the rant he goes into in the first scene


----------



## mudwhistle

It's designed to be an alternative universe where libs win every argument.  

Problem is there's not enough of those types to watch it and think it's not a bunch of hogwash. 

But for someone like Truthmatters it provides a security blanket. Maybe stop the voices from talking to her.  

After the election watching Newsroom might even prevent suicides.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

strollingbones said:


> i know you prefer simpler sagas like the hobbit and all.



Book V Page 930.

Yeah, he can save himself the time and effort in the next to circle jerks he calls "books", I won't be reading them

I got talked into continuing reading the saga and I'm all done with it. I have 2 chapters left and  that's the last time I ever pick the books up again


----------



## Truthmatters

Dear fucking idiot.

this show is going to retrace the fucking lies the republicans have been married to for some time now.

You see truth is better than lies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

mudwhistle said:


> It's designed to be an alternative universe where libs win every argument.
> 
> Problem is there's not enough of those types to watch it and think it's not a bunch of hogwash.
> 
> But for someone like Truthmatters it provides a security blanket. Maybe stop the voices from talking to her.
> 
> After the election watching Newsroom might even prevent suicides.



Whats after Deep Water Horizon, do they prosecute Bush for War Crimes for keeping Gitmo open?

Diebold stealing OH with the Koch Brothers Vote Flipping Machine?

Obama's birth certificate?


----------



## mudwhistle

CrusaderFrank said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's designed to be an alternative universe where libs win every argument.
> 
> Problem is there's not enough of those types to watch it and think it's not a bunch of hogwash.
> 
> But for someone like Truthmatters it provides a security blanket. Maybe stop the voices from talking to her.
> 
> After the election watching Newsroom might even prevent suicides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats after Deep Water Horizon, do they prosecute Bush for War Crimes for keeping Gitmo open?
> 
> Diebold stealing OH with the Koch Brothers Vote Flipping Machine?
> 
> Obama's birth certificate?
Click to expand...


In the real world BP helps host the 2012 London Olympics and tries to help Obama get reielected. 

They did their part to end the threat of domestic drilling off our coasts......or at least bring it to a near standstill.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

I'm of a generation that remembers when we still had journalists we could trust and when journalism was REGULATED to keep foreigners from controlling what we see and hear. So, of course, his rant at the beginning  meant quite a lot to me. 

The show has promise ... We'll see. 

Love reading the very predictable comments from the rw's. Y'all need to stick to "reality" shows about swamps and parking lots. I feel sorry for you since all the various $arah and $pawn shows have been canceled.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

mudwhistle said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's designed to be an alternative universe where libs win every argument.
> 
> Problem is there's not enough of those types to watch it and think it's not a bunch of hogwash.
> 
> But for someone like Truthmatters it provides a security blanket. Maybe stop the voices from talking to her.
> 
> After the election watching Newsroom might even prevent suicides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats after Deep Water Horizon, do they prosecute Bush for War Crimes for keeping Gitmo open?
> 
> Diebold stealing OH with the Koch Brothers Vote Flipping Machine?
> 
> Obama's birth certificate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world BP helps host the 2012 London Olympics and tries to help Obama get reielected.
> 
> They did their part to end the threat of domestic drilling off our coasts......or at least bring it to a near standstill.
Click to expand...


I love the "there are only 36 inspectors!!!!! EEEK! narrative

Do they expect inspectors to go down 18,000 feet in a submersible and visit each rig?


----------



## mudwhistle

luddly.neddite said:


> I'm of a generation that remembers when we still had journalists we could trust and when journalism was REGULATED to keep foreigners from controlling what we see and hear. So, of course, his rant at the beginning  meant quite a lot to me.
> 
> The show has promise ... We'll see.
> 
> Love reading the very predictable comments from the rw's. Y'all need to stick to "reality" shows about swamps and parking lots. I feel sorry for you since all the various $arah and $pawn shows have been canceled.



Sorry, the left appeals to the stupid and misinformed. 

The more informed you are the less likely you are to be a die-hard liberal willing to believe anything. Folks like TM think "Newsroom" is a revelation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OH! Of course!! The housing Bubble!  Right!

How Wall Street made Fannie and Freddie accept "no income no asset" paper and slap their AAA rating on it

Scoundrels!

Barney Frank, hero, stuck his tongue out at Bushs outrageous requests to rein in Fannie and Freddie


----------



## mudwhistle

CrusaderFrank said:


> OH! Of course!! The housing Bubble!  Right!
> 
> How Wall Street made Fannie and Freddie accept "no income no asset" paper and slap their AAA rating on it
> 
> Scoundrels!
> 
> Barney Frank, hero, stuck his tongue out at Bushs outrageous requests to rein in Fannie and Freddie



I've been reading up on this show. 

I like Jeff Daniels. 

I just can't subscribe to HBO anymore.


----------



## Sarah G

mudwhistle said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of a generation that remembers when we still had journalists we could trust and when journalism was REGULATED to keep foreigners from controlling what we see and hear. So, of course, his rant at the beginning  meant quite a lot to me.
> 
> The show has promise ... We'll see.
> 
> Love reading the very predictable comments from the rw's. Y'all need to stick to "reality" shows about swamps and parking lots. I feel sorry for you since all the various $arah and $pawn shows have been canceled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the left appeals to the stupid and misinformed.
> 
> The more informed you are the less likely you are to be a die-hard liberal willing to believe anything. Folks like TM think "Newsroom" is a revelation.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, those toothless, redneck, teaparty talking point kings are real informed, aren't they?  

What gets into you, Muddie.  That's just silly.


----------



## mudwhistle

Sarah G said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of a generation that remembers when we still had journalists we could trust and when journalism was REGULATED to keep foreigners from controlling what we see and hear. So, of course, his rant at the beginning  meant quite a lot to me.
> 
> The show has promise ... We'll see.
> 
> Love reading the very predictable comments from the rw's. Y'all need to stick to "reality" shows about swamps and parking lots. I feel sorry for you since all the various $arah and $pawn shows have been canceled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the left appeals to the stupid and misinformed.
> 
> The more informed you are the less likely you are to be a die-hard liberal willing to believe anything. Folks like TM think "Newsroom" is a revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, those toothless, redneck, teaparty talking point kings are real informed, aren't they?
> 
> What gets into you, Muddie.  That's just silly.
Click to expand...


I guess I spent too many years defending my country to fall for statism. 

I don't hunt nor do I fish. I love herbs and growing things. I don't watch reality programming, I haven't fire a weapon since I retired from the military. I don't believe liberals are completly wrong but I also know Obama is a compulsive liar. I'm more moderate than I seem but to be honest what passes for politics these days makes me furious.  

I just don't think a man that mocks 50% of America every time he gives a speech is right for this country. Most people aren't aware of this, mainly because they don't really listen. They're more concerned with paying their bills, which is getting harder and harder to do.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Was it on? I think I missed this weeks show


----------



## hjmick

Yeah, it was on. Starting to get a little to preachy already. You know, those long winded diatribes meant to convey some sort of moral insight...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

hjmick said:


> Yeah, it was on. Starting to get a little to preachy already. You know, those long winded diatribes meant to convey some sort of moral insight...



Yeah what a total fucking surprise.  I'll have to catch it on rerun later

CNN and the LMSM is just too moderate for Sorkin


----------



## Liability

HBO is still on the rag and harping about Palin.

It is a preachy show.

Frankly, it isn't a terrible show.

But it has its libgenda showing.


----------



## hjmick

Liability said:


> HBO is still on the rag and harping about Palin.
> 
> It is a preachy show.
> 
> Frankly, it isn't a terrible show.
> 
> But it has its libgenda showing.



It's no _West Wing_...


----------



## Liability

hjmick said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> HBO is still on the rag and harping about Palin.
> 
> It is a preachy show.
> 
> Frankly, it isn't a terrible show.
> 
> But it has its libgenda showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's no _West Wing_...
Click to expand...


Until President Sheen gets on.


----------



## Sarah G

CrusaderFrank said:


> Was it on? I think I missed this weeks show



Do you watch on demand?  You can watch anytime.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Sarah G said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it on? I think I missed this weeks show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you watch on demand?  You can watch anytime.
Click to expand...


Not on demand, just when I'm in the mood


----------



## Sarah G

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it on? I think I missed this weeks show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you watch on demand?  You can watch anytime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not on demand, just when I'm in the mood
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Watched it.

Groan.

I like Jeff Daniels, I find Liberals predictable and Boooooooooooooooooring

With Barry 57 States Obama in the WH and the dumbest man in DC as VPOTUS, they make fun of...Sarah Palin!

OMFG!

Palin?

Seriously?!


----------



## chanel

I tried watching the 2nd episode twice and fell asleep both times.  It seemed preachy and the dialogue is way too contrived. People simply don't talk like that.  The "passionate" argument from the intern who believes that "illegal" is a racist term made me want to gag.

I won't be wasting any more time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

chanel said:


> I tried watching the 2nd episode twice and fell asleep both times.  It seemed preachy and the dialogue is way too contrived. People simply don't talk like that.  The "passionate" argument from the intern who believes that "illegal" is a racist term made me want to gag.
> 
> I won't be wasting any more time.



Look at the people they got to talk about the Illegal Invasion, not a brain between the three of them.

Those are the only kinds of arguments Libs can even hope to win


----------



## Sarah G

Another great episode this week.  Koch Brothers, Teaparty and the 112th congress, Jane Fonda (CEO of Newsnight)... 

It's getting better.


----------



## hjmick

Sarah G said:


> Another great episode this week.  Koch Brothers, Teaparty and the 112th congress, Jane Fonda (CEO of Newsnight)...
> 
> It's getting better.



No, it's not.


----------



## CandySlice

Sarah G said:


> Another great episode this week.  Koch Brothers, Teaparty and the 112th congress, Jane Fonda (CEO of Newsnight)...
> 
> It's getting better.



You bethcha, I just paraphrased it on another thread.
Gooood stuff. 
I also liked his opening rant about 'a great country WTF'. He's perfect for the role. Who knew??


----------



## Sarah G

CandySlice said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another great episode this week.  Koch Brothers, Teaparty and the 112th congress, Jane Fonda (CEO of Newsnight)...
> 
> It's getting better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You bethcha, I just paraphrased it on another thread.
> Gooood stuff.
> I also liked his opening rant about 'a great country WTF'. He's perfect for the role. Who knew??
Click to expand...


He had a good rant on the first epi too.  I think this is going to be an every week thing.


----------



## Sarah G

hjmick said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another great episode this week.  Koch Brothers, Teaparty and the 112th congress, Jane Fonda (CEO of Newsnight)...
> 
> It's getting better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
Click to expand...


If you don't think so then don't come in here anymore.  Right Frank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Sarah G said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another great episode this week.  Koch Brothers, Teaparty and the 112th congress, Jane Fonda (CEO of Newsnight)...
> 
> It's getting better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't think so then don't come in here anymore.  Right Frank?
Click to expand...


I sure don't.

The show been headed downhill since the first episode


----------



## Liability

Sarah G said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another great episode this week.  Koch Brothers, Teaparty and the 112th congress, Jane Fonda (CEO of Newsnight)...
> 
> It's getting better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't think so then don't come in here anymore.  Right Frank?
Click to expand...


It's fun to come in here and see libs fawning over another lib's fictional speeches/monologs.

You happen to agree with Sorokin, so you praise his trite tripe.

The show is getting more and more predictable and garishly liberal.  It is definitely getting worse.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Libs all wind up sounds like Gollum, it's just a question of how long it takes for them to utter the first "My preciousssssssssssssssssssssssss"


----------



## Sarah G

CrusaderFrank said:


> Libs all wind up sounds like Gollum, it's just a question of how long it takes for them to utter the first "My preciousssssssssssssssssssssssss"



I think you love it.  You just don't want your boys to know.


----------



## Liability

Sarah G said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs all wind up sounds like Gollum, it's just a question of how long it takes for them to utter the first "My preciousssssssssssssssssssssssss"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you love it.  You just don't want your boys to know.
Click to expand...



It's a pretty little conceit that Sorokin has going.  Pretend your semi-main character is a "Republican."  (Musta modeled it after Fakey.)

THEN have that now firmly established non-liberal (because in lib land no Republican is capable of independent thought etc) mouth and spew purely trite liberal mantras.


----------



## Sarah G

Liability said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs all wind up sounds like Gollum, it's just a question of how long it takes for them to utter the first "My preciousssssssssssssssssssssssss"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you love it.  You just don't want your boys to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty little conceit that Sorokin has going.  Pretend your semi-main character is a "Republican."  (Musta modeled it after Fakey.)
> 
> THEN have that now firmly established non-liberal (because in lib land no Republican is capable of independent thought etc) mouth and spew purely trite liberal mantras.
Click to expand...


Well if Cons weren't all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time, they wouldn't have that inflexible reputation.


----------



## Liability

Sarah G said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you love it.  You just don't want your boys to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty little conceit that Sorokin has going.  Pretend your semi-main character is a "Republican."  (Musta modeled it after Fakey.)
> 
> THEN have that now firmly established non-liberal (because in lib land no Republican is capable of independent thought etc) mouth and spew purely trite liberal mantras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if Cons weren't all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time, they wouldn't have that inflexible reputation.
Click to expand...


Conservative *aren't* "all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time."

Yet, contrary to your petty ridiculous thesis, they DO have that "reputation" in the "minds" of petty partisan liberals.

The fault lies with the petty partisan liberals, not with any alleged lockstep thinking of conservatives.


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty little conceit that Sorokin has going.  Pretend your semi-main character is a "Republican."  (Musta modeled it after Fakey.)
> 
> THEN have that now firmly established non-liberal (because in lib land no Republican is capable of independent thought etc) mouth and spew purely trite liberal mantras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if Cons weren't all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time, they wouldn't have that inflexible reputation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative *aren't* "all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time."
> 
> Yet, contrary to your petty ridiculous thesis, they DO have that "reputation" in the "minds" of petty partisan liberals.
> 
> The fault lies with the petty partisan liberals, not with any alleged lockstep thinking of conservatives.
Click to expand...


So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??


----------



## Sarah G

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if Cons weren't all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time, they wouldn't have that inflexible reputation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative *aren't* "all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time."
> 
> Yet, contrary to your petty ridiculous thesis, they DO have that "reputation" in the "minds" of petty partisan liberals.
> 
> The fault lies with the petty partisan liberals, not with any alleged lockstep thinking of conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??
Click to expand...


He had to go watch Newsroom on demand.


----------



## CandySlice

Sarah G said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative *aren't* "all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time."
> 
> Yet, contrary to your petty ridiculous thesis, they DO have that "reputation" in the "minds" of petty partisan liberals.
> 
> The fault lies with the petty partisan liberals, not with any alleged lockstep thinking of conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had to go watch Newsroom on demand.
Click to expand...


Well, one can hope. He basically agrees with me but there is a disconnect somewhere that won't allow him to see it. Go figure.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saw it last night. Another show by "West Wing" creator Sorkin.
> 
> It's a newsroom that, gosh darn it, is sick and tired of news that depresses you. It wants to make a difference-- like when Murrow took out McCarthy (for correctly and presciently saying that US State and the WH was a nest of Soviet spies) or how Cronkite (sided with the NVA after we had inflicted probably the worst defeat on an enemy since the Soviets retook Stalingrad to) successfully turn American people against Vietnam.
> 
> I loved Jeff Daniels performance. He's the grizzled old anchor who needs to redirect himself. While appearing on a panel with a Liberal and Conservative commentator, a student from the audience asked the panel "What makes America the greatest nation" and the Liberal says "Diversity" the Conservative say "Freedom" and Jeff Daniels lights into the student in a 5 minute diatribe calling her stupid for thinking that American is great.
> 
> They handle the Deep Water Horizon in real time and it's interesting to see how it all comes together to make a news broadcast.  The take away was Halliburton is evil and we need more government regulation.
> 
> At some point the Liberal spew is going to make me miss Jeff Daniels as an actor and that will be my loss but Liberals should learn that alienating half your potential audience by showing anyone to the right of Mao as evil and/or stupid will give you a NYTimes-like the Double Black Diamond chart of viewship.
> 
> I'll watch the next episode



A program that exposes the lies of the right; didnt think conservatives would like it.


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if Cons weren't all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time, they wouldn't have that inflexible reputation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative *aren't* "all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time."
> 
> Yet, contrary to your petty ridiculous thesis, they DO have that "reputation" in the "minds" of petty partisan liberals.
> 
> The fault lies with the petty partisan liberals, not with any alleged lockstep thinking of conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??
Click to expand...


Your delusions off adequacy are as baseless as that claim.

You have never backed anybody into a corner, and most certainly not me.  And I have fled no threads, either.

Your grandiose thinking is symptomatic of deeper issues.  I recommend that you seek professional psychiatric help.


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had to go watch Newsroom on demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, one can hope. He basically agrees with me but there is a disconnect somewhere that won't allow him to see it. Go figure.
Click to expand...


We do not basically agree.  We do not agree at all.  I disagree with you because you are pretty dense.  It is sad to see you being so blind.  In fact, I'm not sure what's worse for you: "'seeing" the shit that Sorokin wants you to see or all the stuff you are utterly blind to.

Your delusions are troubling.

If you are that blind in real life, I can only pray you don't drive cars.


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saw it last night. Another show by "West Wing" creator Sorkin.
> 
> It's a newsroom that, gosh darn it, is sick and tired of news that depresses you. It wants to make a difference-- like when Murrow took out McCarthy (for correctly and presciently saying that US State and the WH was a nest of Soviet spies) or how Cronkite (sided with the NVA after we had inflicted probably the worst defeat on an enemy since the Soviets retook Stalingrad to) successfully turn American people against Vietnam.
> 
> I loved Jeff Daniels performance. He's the grizzled old anchor who needs to redirect himself. While appearing on a panel with a Liberal and Conservative commentator, a student from the audience asked the panel "What makes America the greatest nation" and the Liberal says "Diversity" the Conservative say "Freedom" and Jeff Daniels lights into the student in a 5 minute diatribe calling her stupid for thinking that American is great.
> 
> They handle the Deep Water Horizon in real time and it's interesting to see how it all comes together to make a news broadcast.  The take away was Halliburton is evil and we need more government regulation.
> 
> At some point the Liberal spew is going to make me miss Jeff Daniels as an actor and that will be my loss but Liberals should learn that alienating half your potential audience by showing anyone to the right of Mao as evil and/or stupid will give you a NYTimes-like the Double Black Diamond chart of viewship.
> 
> I'll watch the next episode


As one critic put it, and I paraphrase:

"Alan Sorkin is retelling and rewriting the philosophical and political battles the liberals have lost and they said what they should have said the first time to win."

Essentially pretending liberalism gets 'final cut' rights with history.

I also agree with said critic that the left should be allowed to indulge in such fantasy because the more the believe in it, the more detached and kooky they get from the real arguments making it easier and easier to roll them back into obscurity and powerlessness.


----------



## Toro

I watched about 15 minutes last week.  I'm not going to watch it again.  It came across as self-important and pretentious.  







(Hey, I just described me!)


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative *aren't* "all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time."
> 
> Yet, contrary to your petty ridiculous thesis, they DO have that "reputation" in the "minds" of petty partisan liberals.
> 
> The fault lies with the petty partisan liberals, not with any alleged lockstep thinking of conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusions off adequacy are as baseless as that claim.
> 
> You have never backed anybody into a corner, and most certainly not me.  And I have fled no threads, either.
> 
> Your grandiose thinking is symptomatic of deeper issues.  I recommend that you seek professional psychiatric help.
Click to expand...


Oh my Gawd. You just managed to cram together more stock comebacks in one post than anyone I've ever seen.Well done!


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusions off adequacy are as baseless as that claim.
> 
> You have never backed anybody into a corner, and most certainly not me.  And I have fled no threads, either.
> 
> Your grandiose thinking is symptomatic of deeper issues.  I recommend that you seek professional psychiatric help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my Gawd. You just managed to cram together more stock comebacks in one post than anyone I've ever seen.Well done!
Click to expand...


Like when you used the typical resort of losers and cowards and pretended that I had "fled" a thread where you supposedly had prevailed?



Sad fact, slice.  You suck at this.

I realize you lack the integrity to acknowledge that you've gotten creamed.

We all see you for what you are.

Are you actually related to Fakey?


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusions off adequacy are as baseless as that claim.
> 
> You have never backed anybody into a corner, and most certainly not me.  And I have fled no threads, either.
> 
> Your grandiose thinking is symptomatic of deeper issues.  I recommend that you seek professional psychiatric help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my Gawd. You just managed to cram together more stock comebacks in one post than anyone I've ever seen.Well done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when you used the typical resort of losers and cowards and pretended that I had "fled" a thread where you supposedly had prevailed?
> 
> 
> 
> Sad fact, slice.  You suck at this.
> 
> I realize you lack the integrity to acknowledge that you've gotten creamed.
> 
> We all see you for what you are.
> 
> Are you actually related to Fakey?
Click to expand...


Look, we are on the same side and in most cases we agree. What is your deal?

We? OMG there's imaginary boosters behind you too?? Truth is, Liability, nobody here gives two hoots in hell about what either one of us have to say. Quit trying to turn this into the OK Corral. It's embarassing to watch.


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my Gawd. You just managed to cram together more stock comebacks in one post than anyone I've ever seen.Well done!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like when you used the typical resort of losers and cowards and pretended that I had "fled" a thread where you supposedly had prevailed?
> 
> 
> 
> Sad fact, slice.  You suck at this.
> 
> I realize you lack the integrity to acknowledge that you've gotten creamed.
> 
> We all see you for what you are.
> 
> Are you actually related to Fakey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, we are on the same side and in most cases we agree. What is your deal?
> 
> We? OMG there's imaginary boosters behind you too?? Truth is, Liability, nobody here gives two hoots in hell about what either one of us have to say. Quit trying to turn this into the OK Corral. It's embarassing to watch.
Click to expand...


good advice.  Apparently, based on your own behavior, it is much easier to shell it out than it is to apply it to yourself.  Go review your bombastic rhetoric and then try to claim that the shootout was in any way one-sided.



Anyway, back ON topic:

I only stumbled back on this thread because I saw the show for most of the season.  And I saw what I believe was the final first season episode last night.

Here's a dirty secret.  Despite its OBVIOUS bias and distortions, I do kind of enjoy the show.  It's a shame that Sorokin is so shallow, though, that he imagines that CALLING the protagonist a "Republican" has anything to do with lending cred to his polemic efforts.

If nothing else, the theme music is pretty good.


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when you used the typical resort of losers and cowards and pretended that I had "fled" a thread where you supposedly had prevailed?
> 
> 
> 
> Sad fact, slice.  You suck at this.
> 
> I realize you lack the integrity to acknowledge that you've gotten creamed.
> 
> We all see you for what you are.
> 
> Are you actually related to Fakey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, we are on the same side and in most cases we agree. What is your deal?
> 
> We? OMG there's imaginary boosters behind you too?? Truth is, Liability, nobody here gives two hoots in hell about what either one of us have to say. Quit trying to turn this into the OK Corral. It's embarassing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good advice.  Apparently, based on your own behavior, it is much easier to shell it out than it is to apply it to yourself.  Go review your bombastic rhetoric and then try to claim that the shootout was in any way one-sided.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, back ON topic:
> 
> I only stumbled back on this thread because I saw the show for most of the season.  And I saw what I believe was the final first season episode last night.
> 
> Here's a dirty secret.  Despite its OBVIOUS bias and distortions, I do kind of enjoy the show.  It's a shame that Sorokin is so shallow, though, that he imagines that CALLING the protagonist a "Republican" has anything to do with lending cred to his polemic efforts.
> 
> If nothing else, the theme music is pretty good.
Click to expand...


 I thought bombastic rhetoric was the whole reason message boards were created in the first place.

I like the show because it puts into words so many things I have agreed with all along. The Republican party has been hi-jacked and co-opted by jack-rollers and Tea Party waterheads much like the only real Democrats on display these days remind me of people Ralph Steadman might have drawn for Hunter Thompson on one of their more destructive, twisted acid trips.

I started out as a Democrat yea these many years ago and was faithful until I simply didn't recognize those warthogs anymore. Though I am instinctively, maybe on some basic DNA level suspicious of the Republican party I feel as I've grown older, and hopefully wiser or at least more savvy about the ways the 'real' world works that being a conservative, in the original version of conservatism, not this shredded mess that's passing for it today has become a lonely place to be. 

So I do sympathize with the character Sorkin has created in Will McAvoy. He speaks for many of us who are confused and frustrated about having our futures and our fate in the hands of what has boiled down to just so may idiot-savants coming from all directions.


----------



## CandySlice

'Stumbled back?' Oh please.


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> 'Stumbled back?' Oh please.



Yep.

I'd reconstruct it for you, but it would require the willing suspension of your disbelief.

But here's a clue:  what period of time passed between the prior post and the one you just quoted from?

Get back to me on that.

Or don't.


----------



## kwc57

Truthmatters said:


> Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.
> 
> Cons wont like this show.
> 
> It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.
> 
> 
> Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is



You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Stumbled back?' Oh please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> I'd reconstruct it for you, but it would require the willing suspension of your disbelief.
> 
> But here's a clue:  what period of time passed between the prior post and the one you just quoted from?
> 
> Get back to me on that.
> 
> Or don't.
Click to expand...


 Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.


----------



## CandySlice

kwc57 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.
> 
> Cons wont like this show.
> 
> It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.
> 
> 
> Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?
Click to expand...


Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.
> 
> Cons wont like this show.
> 
> It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.
> 
> 
> Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.
Click to expand...


Well, the Deep Water Horizon did explode and result in lots of pollution.   But no.  No news guys found out all that could be found out on day one.

And yes, it is easy to take snippets of Republicans doing the politician smack-talk thing and extract instances of them speaking the language of dumb.  But it would be just as easy to do that for (and to) the Dims.  _Oddly_, Sorokin doesn't seem up to the task of being fair like that.

And no.  The Bill-the-Anchor character isn't RIGHT merely because he mouths the mindless prattle platitudes that libs choose to "believe."


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Stumbled back?' Oh please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> I'd reconstruct it for you, but it would require the willing suspension of your disbelief.
> 
> But here's a clue:  what period of time passed between the prior post and the one you just quoted from?
> 
> Get back to me on that.
> 
> Or don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.
Click to expand...


No, dopey.  I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.

You aren't even a side show.

But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.


----------



## Desperado

If you ignore the propaganda, it is not a bad show.


----------



## kwc57

CandySlice said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.
> 
> Cons wont like this show.
> 
> It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.
> 
> 
> Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.
Click to expand...


Commentary and fiction are vastly different things.


----------



## Liability

kwc57 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commentary and fiction are vastly different things.
Click to expand...


Honesty and modern American liberalism are very different things.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Liberal media is too nice and fair, they need to be more like the Newsroom


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> I'd reconstruct it for you, but it would require the willing suspension of your disbelief.
> 
> But here's a clue:  what period of time passed between the prior post and the one you just quoted from?
> 
> Get back to me on that.
> 
> Or don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dopey.  I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.
> 
> You aren't even a side show.
> 
> But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.[/QUOTE]
> 
> How would you recognize either one??
Click to expand...


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dopey.  I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.
> 
> You aren't even a side show.
> 
> But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you recognize either one??
Click to expand...


Simple.  Unlike you, I even know how to use the quote function.  It's really not THAT difficult, you yutz.  Ask a child to help you.


----------



## CandySlice

kwc57 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commentary and fiction are vastly different things.
Click to expand...



I think if you look at movies and television as our way of passing on the lore and the attitudes of the people of our times, something we can look back on as a time capsule containing the feelings of the moment captured forever on the printed page or on film you could make a case for fiction being the very essence of commentary. Just because somebody wrote it as fiction doesn't make it invalid. Ask anybody that ever read Tolstoy or Shakespeare.

PS,  fellow Okie here. I went to NW Classen.


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dopey.  I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.
> 
> You aren't even a side show.
> 
> But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.[/QUOTE]
> 
> How would you recognize either one??
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, dopey.  I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.
> 
> You aren't even a side show.
> 
> But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you recognize either one??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  Unlike you, I even know how to use the quote function.  It's really not THAT difficult, you yutz.  Ask a child to help you.
Click to expand...


Okay, Liability. We get it. You see yourself as some Belushi-frat boy kamikaze cutting edge insult Captain of the message boards. When in reality you are probably the quintessential basement dweller, over-weight pimple farm misfit like so many that have come before you, with one glaring exception. So many before you have done it so much better. You need new material. Some of your stuff was worn out in 2007.


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you recognize either one??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  Unlike you, I even know how to use the quote function.  It's really not THAT difficult, you yutz.  Ask a child to help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, Liability. We get it. You see yourself as some Belushi-frat boy kamikaze cutting edge insult Captain of the message boards. When in reality you are probably the quintessential basement dweller, over-weight pimple farm misfit like so many that have come before you, with one glaring exception. So many before you have done it so much better. You need new material. Some of your stuff was worn out in 2007.
Click to expand...


Wow.  The butthurt in you is very strong.


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, dopey.  I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.
> 
> You aren't even a side show.
> 
> But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you recognize either one??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  Unlike you, I even know how to use the quote function.  It's really not THAT difficult, you yutz.  Ask a child to help you.
Click to expand...


I guess it just isn't all that important to me.


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  Unlike you, I even know how to use the quote function.  It's really not THAT difficult, you yutz.  Ask a child to help you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Liability. We get it. You see yourself as some Belushi-frat boy kamikaze cutting edge insult Captain of the message boards. When in reality you are probably the quintessential basement dweller, over-weight pimple farm misfit like so many that have come before you, with one glaring exception. So many before you have done it so much better. You need new material. Some of your stuff was worn out in 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  The butthurt in you is very strong.
Click to expand...


And paraphrasing Star Wars only relegates you irretrievably to Dwark-dom.


----------



## kwc57

CandySlice said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commentary and fiction are vastly different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you look at movies and television as our way of passing on the lore and the attitudes of the people of our times, something we can look back on as a time capsule containing the feelings of the moment captured forever on the printed page or on film you could make a case for fiction being the very essence of commentary. Just because somebody wrote it as fiction doesn't make it invalid. Ask anybody that ever read Tolstoy or Shakespeare.
> 
> PS,  fellow Okie here. I went to NW Classen.
Click to expand...


US Grant, class of 75.


----------



## CandySlice

kwc57 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commentary and fiction are vastly different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you look at movies and television as our way of passing on the lore and the attitudes of the people of our times, something we can look back on as a time capsule containing the feelings of the moment captured forever on the printed page or on film you could make a case for fiction being the very essence of commentary. Just because somebody wrote it as fiction doesn't make it invalid. Ask anybody that ever read Tolstoy or Shakespeare.
> 
> PS,  fellow Okie here. I went to NW Classen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US Grant, class of 75.
Click to expand...


I've been gone a  long time. NWC 67' Where is Grant? I had friends at Putnam City and Marshall even Central on Classen Blvd (but it's something else now, isn't it?) and some friends at Harding.  North West girl, what can I say?) But The City was a lot smaller then. I know there has been a lot of build up out NW HIWAY since I left. When I came back in 89 I was amazed at how things had changed. And the Classen Circle was gone. How could they do that?? LOL


----------



## Liability

CandySlice said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Liability. We get it. You see yourself as some Belushi-frat boy kamikaze cutting edge insult Captain of the message boards. When in reality you are probably the quintessential basement dweller, over-weight pimple farm misfit like so many that have come before you, with one glaring exception. So many before you have done it so much better. You need new material. Some of your stuff was worn out in 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The butthurt in you is very strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And paraphrasing Star Wars only relegates you irretrievably to Dwark-dom.
Click to expand...


Being butthurt relegates you the land of the laughably pathetic.


----------



## CandySlice

Liability said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The butthurt in you is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And paraphrasing Star Wars only relegates you irretrievably to Dwark-dom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being butthurt relegates you the land of the laughably pathetic.
Click to expand...


 Oooo, that hurt. You are a child. Go to your room.


----------



## Polk

The thing I find the most interesting that the less they focus on the show within the show in the episodes, the better the episodes are.


----------



## Polk

chanel said:


> I tried watching the 2nd episode twice and fell asleep both times.  It seemed preachy and the dialogue is way too contrived. People simply don't talk like that.  The "passionate" argument from the intern who believes that "illegal" is a racist term made me want to gag.
> 
> I won't be wasting any more time.



Sorkin dialogue is never like normal language.


----------



## Politico

Too bad they don't actually report the news that way.


----------



## CandySlice

Politico said:


> Too bad they don't actually report the news that way.



Wouldn't that be a great day? When the talking heads actually stood for something other than ratings and a pay check.


----------

