OT: Anyone catch HBO's new show Newsroom?
- Thread starter joedawg
- Start date
I actually liked Studio 60 on NBC. It got cancelled after its first year but I thought it was good.
the show itself was really good. The cold open was great, probably the best one I have seen in the pilot episode. The opening credits need work though. I almost turned the channel before the show picked back up. I guess everyone wants recognition. Sorkin usually has great dynamic between characters and great dialogue. <div>
</div><div>I would suggest everyone to watch it. It probably hits a little on the left side of social issues, but the shows first episode has already hit on a bunch of my typical comments about our political climate.</div><div>1. People need to actually listen to the other sides points and realize they are not "socialist or religious fundamentalist" but they are actually "American".</div><div>2. Tolerance of other people's ideas.</div><div>3. Solutions will happen and America will be better once we get off the finger pointing and start shaking hands.</div><div>
</div><div>Off my soap box.</div>
</div><div>I would suggest everyone to watch it. It probably hits a little on the left side of social issues, but the shows first episode has already hit on a bunch of my typical comments about our political climate.</div><div>1. People need to actually listen to the other sides points and realize they are not "socialist or religious fundamentalist" but they are actually "American".</div><div>2. Tolerance of other people's ideas.</div><div>3. Solutions will happen and America will be better once we get off the finger pointing and start shaking hands.</div><div>
</div><div>Off my soap box.</div>
<span> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S78RzZr3IwI?version=3&f=videos&app=youtube_gdata" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355" allowScriptAccess="never" ></embed> </span>
Probably? Have you ever even heard of Aaron Sorkin?
And you expect this from this show? Are you real?
The left is by far the most intolerant of other's ideas. And it's not even close. Aaron Sorkin is a great example of this.
until that idiotic last sentence. part of conservatives weird persecution complex many have going.
the last few years have been a pretty good test case. Despite overwhelming evidence of the truth of Keynesian econ, despite every Keynesian prediction being right and every supply-side prediction being wrong (interest rates, inflation, rate of recovery, the Euro) the right won't even grudgingly admit fault in hindsight, let alone give it it's due when forming current policy. And we've all seen how tolerant the left (if reluctantly) has been of supply-side econ, compare tax rates from the 70s if you need to.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-02/entertainment/29979887_1_predictions-columnists-paul-krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/economics-good-and-bad/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/enter-laffering/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/economics-in-the-crisis/
my problem with Newsroom was how it took months of revelations about the BP oil spill, and pretended one newsroom uncovered all of it in about an hour. too unrealistic for me.
the last few years have been a pretty good test case. Despite overwhelming evidence of the truth of Keynesian econ, despite every Keynesian prediction being right and every supply-side prediction being wrong (interest rates, inflation, rate of recovery, the Euro) the right won't even grudgingly admit fault in hindsight, let alone give it it's due when forming current policy. And we've all seen how tolerant the left (if reluctantly) has been of supply-side econ, compare tax rates from the 70s if you need to.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-02/entertainment/29979887_1_predictions-columnists-paul-krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/economics-good-and-bad/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/enter-laffering/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/economics-in-the-crisis/
my problem with Newsroom was how it took months of revelations about the BP oil spill, and pretended one newsroom uncovered all of it in about an hour. too unrealistic for me.
HBO put the entire first episode on YouTube.<div>
</div><div>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=youtu.be
</div><div>
</div><div>I thought it was good. I was a West Wing fan.</div>
</div><div>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=youtu.be
</div><div>
</div><div>I thought it was good. I was a West Wing fan.</div>
Jeff Daniels is the man. <div>
</div><div>Surely everyone must have forgot about Trial and Error. Michael Richards, Jeff Daniels, Charlize Theron at their finest.</div>
</div><div>Surely everyone must have forgot about Trial and Error. Michael Richards, Jeff Daniels, Charlize Theron at their finest.</div>
I'm not talking about economists predictions and who got it right and who got it wrong. I'm talking about the general nature of the the left versus the right.
And a persecution complex? Seriously? Hell, without a persecution complex the left would lose 25% of their support instantly.
And a persecution complex? Seriously? Hell, without a persecution complex the left would lose 25% of their support instantly.
Not really getting into this, I really do have an appreciation for your post for the past 10 years or so, but my commentary is a general take on politics that I see day in and day out. I consider myself further left than most people, but my tolerance and understanding for the conservative argument these days stems from my personal choice to read conservative arguments and think about the core objectives they are trying to meet. The conservative argument is not the devil I once thought it was. We are not as far apart as they would like us to think. <div>MadDawg said:
</div><div>All my comments were completely off topic from the show Newsroom and Sorkin. Knowledgeable people in this country used to be able to see both sides of an argument and work towards a goal. It doesn't happen anymore because the far left and the far right yell louder than everyone else drawing in more and more people to the fringes.</div><div>
</div><div>So, yes Sorkin is far left but has nothing to do with my original post.</div>
the left thinks the right is wrong. and some of those people are a-holeish about it, no doubt. but the right takes the belief in their rightness to another level, in large part due to mixing politics with religion. how a conservative can get so upset just by the idea that they might be wrong is the whole reason politics is such a frowned on topic in this country. so, by 'general nature', you are wrong as well.
on persecution, War on Religion, Christmas, Guns, etc etc etc. An overwhelming majority of the right sounds like Chockwe Lambada or whatever that guy's name is. You don't see the left claiming there's a conspiracy to take their patchouli or whatever. the right claiming that they are in fact the victims of intolerance is just a part of that meme.
on persecution, War on Religion, Christmas, Guns, etc etc etc. An overwhelming majority of the right sounds like Chockwe Lambada or whatever that guy's name is. You don't see the left claiming there's a conspiracy to take their patchouli or whatever. the right claiming that they are in fact the victims of intolerance is just a part of that meme.
I agree with a lot of that, and while many would identify me as far left, i am southern to the bone so i have very many 'conservative' traits as well. on many issues i see the conservative view as flawed because of one very simple misunderstanding or blind spot (for example, on health care, will you allow someone to die that could be saved easily with care, just because they made a bad econ decision long ago?). but the problem that i run into is that nearly all conservatives nowadays take it not as a rational conclusion, but as an identity. they'd as soon change their religious beliefs as their political ones, and it shouldn't be that way. and you can't say the same of the left, no matter that their side is flawed too, nor that it probably applies some of them as well. which runs into where i disagree with you on cooperation: it takes both sides. the Dems have screwed themselves so many times chasing 'bipartisanship' that i cringe at the word. there is a time for it, but there's also a time to run roughshod over your enemies and force them to the table from fear, not hope. as my southern side would say, "spare the rod, spoil the child". the Dems endless fig leafs and holding back has spoiled the GOP into where cooperation is now impossible. and the endless calls for 'both sides' to come to the table only makes our situation worse.
/rant off
/rant off
wait, you are actually not even arguing which party is more tolerant of the other's views on economics and foreign policy and what not, but are actually suggesting the right is more tolerant on social issues? what rock have you been living under?
boomboommsu said:
agreed. except i also see healthcare issues economically. the poor don't go for regular doctor visits, they wait until it's so bad they end up clogging our emergency rooms with illnesses that could have been taken care of at family clinic. why? because they know they can do it and the hospital won't turn them away. the costs end up back on those of us with insurance and paying taxes. and a hospital stay and care is going to run much more than an hour long docotr visit for a cold. so we are paying for it either way. give these people some kinda healthcare plan and let them get checkups and go to the doctor for basic medication for their colds before it turns into pnuemonia. it unclogs the emergency rooms, it promotes a healthier society, and in the long run might actually save tax payers money, or at least come close to breaking even. same story with birth control. i can't figure out how the far right argues against providing birth control to the poor, then bitches when they have 10 kids leeching off welfare. basic economics says we are better off handing out birth control to the poor and saving ourselves at least 18 years of welfare care and statistically, these kids are more likely to end up being on some sort of govt welfare for a majority of their lives than kids who grew up in middle and upper class families (not to mention the economic-birth rate correlation heavily leans in favor of the poor, the middle and upper classes aren't having kids - which in reality is probably good given how the world is damn near at max capacity if not there already).
*this is not an endorsement of the obamacare, but rather just for the general idea of some kinda better govt funded healthcare.
for example, on health care, will you allow someone to die that could be saved easily with care, just because they made a bad econ decision long ago?
So lets just use the force of law to take that choice away from people. 17 freedom. hospitals already have to treat emergencies, by law.
Dems have screwed themselves so many times chasing 'bipartisanship' that i cringe at the word
Obama on the health care argument. "I won"
spoiled the GOP into where cooperation is now impossible
The 2010 landslide was a message to STOP the Dem agenda, not cooperate with it. 70+ seat change = GOP mandate
they'd as soon change their religious beliefs as their political ones
See all the Catholic Dems going along with free contraception. Pelosi actually said her faith compelled her to support that.
So lets just use the force of law to take that choice away from people. 17 freedom. hospitals already have to treat emergencies, by law.
Dems have screwed themselves so many times chasing 'bipartisanship' that i cringe at the word
Obama on the health care argument. "I won"
spoiled the GOP into where cooperation is now impossible
The 2010 landslide was a message to STOP the Dem agenda, not cooperate with it. 70+ seat change = GOP mandate
they'd as soon change their religious beliefs as their political ones
See all the Catholic Dems going along with free contraception. Pelosi actually said her faith compelled her to support that.
"for example, on health care, will you allow someone to die that could be saved easily with care, just because they made a bad econ decision long ago?
So lets just use the force of law to take that choice away from people. 17 freedom. hospitals already have to treat emergencies, by law. "
and many people point to Reagan's signing of that 1986 lawas when medicine became 'socialized'. the point is, there are some people thatif they know that ultimately someone will treat them, then they won't take on the responsibility of insurance/savings/etc. Adverse selection, yada yada yada. once you've accepted that the state WILL care for such a person, you arrive ultimately at something close to Obamacare as theonly viable non-Europeansystem. decide you won't care for that person, and the Republican alternative makes perfect sense. like i said, most conservatives have a blind spot to the truth that with a mandate for emergency treatment, the system will be overabused absent an insurance mandate.
"Dems have screwed themselves so many times chasing 'bipartisanship' that i cringe at the word
Obama on the health care argument. "I won" "
Did you live in a cave while he spent a year and a half chasing GOP votes, when he didn't even need them? The Grassley committee fiasco? Cornhusker kickback? none of this ringing a bell?
Do you think the GOP would spend a year and a half reaching out for a few Dems to vote with them to repeal Obamacare for 'bipartisanship's sake', or just do it?
"spoiled the GOP into where cooperation is now impossible
The 2010 landslide was a message to STOP the Dem agenda, not cooperate with it. 70+ seat change = GOP mandate"
that's only one interpretation. the massive amounts of liberals that stayed home rather than vote for milqetoast Dems unwilling to fight tell a different story. and a poor economy of course is a major factor as well. Obama chose 2% inflation over lowering 10% unemployment. voter rejection of that stance is hardly a conservative triumph. but even if you're right, it only reinforces my point. Dems had landslides in 2006 and 2008, and didn't react as GOP did in 2010 with theirs.
"they'd as soon change their religious beliefs as their political ones
See all the Catholic Dems going along with free contraception. Pelosi actually said her faith compelled her to support that. "
'render unto Caeser'. you do realize Catholics in Europeans countries have no problem with state contraception, right? Catholic teaching actually teaches that it's allowable, as it is distant from the individual, yada yada. not that many Catholics in this country have been informed of that.
So lets just use the force of law to take that choice away from people. 17 freedom. hospitals already have to treat emergencies, by law. "
and many people point to Reagan's signing of that 1986 lawas when medicine became 'socialized'. the point is, there are some people thatif they know that ultimately someone will treat them, then they won't take on the responsibility of insurance/savings/etc. Adverse selection, yada yada yada. once you've accepted that the state WILL care for such a person, you arrive ultimately at something close to Obamacare as theonly viable non-Europeansystem. decide you won't care for that person, and the Republican alternative makes perfect sense. like i said, most conservatives have a blind spot to the truth that with a mandate for emergency treatment, the system will be overabused absent an insurance mandate.
"Dems have screwed themselves so many times chasing 'bipartisanship' that i cringe at the word
Obama on the health care argument. "I won" "
Did you live in a cave while he spent a year and a half chasing GOP votes, when he didn't even need them? The Grassley committee fiasco? Cornhusker kickback? none of this ringing a bell?
Do you think the GOP would spend a year and a half reaching out for a few Dems to vote with them to repeal Obamacare for 'bipartisanship's sake', or just do it?
"spoiled the GOP into where cooperation is now impossible
The 2010 landslide was a message to STOP the Dem agenda, not cooperate with it. 70+ seat change = GOP mandate"
that's only one interpretation. the massive amounts of liberals that stayed home rather than vote for milqetoast Dems unwilling to fight tell a different story. and a poor economy of course is a major factor as well. Obama chose 2% inflation over lowering 10% unemployment. voter rejection of that stance is hardly a conservative triumph. but even if you're right, it only reinforces my point. Dems had landslides in 2006 and 2008, and didn't react as GOP did in 2010 with theirs.
"they'd as soon change their religious beliefs as their political ones
See all the Catholic Dems going along with free contraception. Pelosi actually said her faith compelled her to support that. "
'render unto Caeser'. you do realize Catholics in Europeans countries have no problem with state contraception, right? Catholic teaching actually teaches that it's allowable, as it is distant from the individual, yada yada. not that many Catholics in this country have been informed of that.