Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Winner SPOILER -- avoid if you're on West Coast
20 views
Skip to first unread message
darkst...@gmail.com
May 20, 2012, 11:08:39 PM5/20/12
to
I knew it.
I knew it.
I damn well knew it.
Besides being out-donated two to one, Arsenio Hall is the winner.
I knew that, after all the shit the ladies turned the damn show into this year, that Trump would probably finish it off and hire Hall.
Donald Trump, YOU'RE FIRED! All you want to turn this in to is a fucking publicity spectacle, with no regard for integrity or even the spirit of competing for charity.
Or, what, Donald, could you not let the gay man win, just like your counterparts on FOX? We know how much of a Republican you are, Donald!
Mike
I knew it.
I damn well knew it.
Besides being out-donated two to one, Arsenio Hall is the winner.
I knew that, after all the shit the ladies turned the damn show into this year, that Trump would probably finish it off and hire Hall.
Donald Trump, YOU'RE FIRED! All you want to turn this in to is a fucking publicity spectacle, with no regard for integrity or even the spirit of competing for charity.
Or, what, Donald, could you not let the gay man win, just like your counterparts on FOX? We know how much of a Republican you are, Donald!
Mike
Message has been deleted
darkst...@gmail.com
May 21, 2012, 4:14:45 AM5/21/12
to
I just don't know if it's Trump as a homophobic Republican, or Trump as a showman who has openly accepted what once was a great idea now degenerating into the type of mud pit that, IMODO, Teresa, Lisa, and Aubrey turned it in to!
But I have to think it's one or the other. There's NO WAY that Arsenio won cleanly.
Mike
But I have to think it's one or the other. There's NO WAY that Arsenio won cleanly.
Mike
Message has been deleted
Nancy2
May 21, 2012, 8:42:20 AM5/21/12
to
adult language and humor in Arsenio's gig? If for no other reason
than that, Arsenio should have lost.
N.
Nancy2
May 21, 2012, 8:40:52 AM5/21/12
to
the choice of a black guy or a gay guy, it's a toss-up. I can't
believe Donald fell for that "poor me, my cousin died of HIV, I've
been second my whole life [said seriously]" crap.
(Psst, Donald really doesn't "hire" the celebrity winner.)
N.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
darkst...@gmail.com
May 21, 2012, 3:24:19 PM5/21/12
to
The season was a complete train-wreck, allowed to be dragged through the gutter and completely stripped of the last dignity and honor that competing for charity (which most of the celebs completely forgot about) was supposed to bring.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
May 21, 2012, 3:25:25 PM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 5:40:52 AM UTC-7, Nancy2 wrote:
> I'm really disgusted. Clay should have won, no question. But, given
> the choice of a black guy or a gay guy, it's a toss-up. I can't
> believe Donald fell for that "poor me, my cousin died of HIV, I've
> been second my whole life [said seriously]" crap.
I can. Especially when it allows him to play political cards to his own advantage.
> I'm really disgusted. Clay should have won, no question. But, given
> the choice of a black guy or a gay guy, it's a toss-up. I can't
> believe Donald fell for that "poor me, my cousin died of HIV, I've
> been second my whole life [said seriously]" crap.
> (Psst, Donald really doesn't "hire" the celebrity winner.)
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
May 21, 2012, 3:39:31 PM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Bob Rudd wrote:
> Excuse me, I doubt you will find a more conservative Republican than
> myself. You may not find someone with my degree of political and tv
> expertise as well.
You know, if you weren't in this thread, I probably would openly challenge Red Tuna to come to my locale and try to blow away a Commie kike liberal *runs through the checklist - did I get them all?* ass.
I know, from our discussions in other newsgroups, that you are a conservative Republican and that you are about as tolerant as they come on these matters. None of this applies to you personally.
But it's attitudes like his (and even if the asshole is trolling, those attitudes are very common in the base in which "God, Gays, and Guns" (more, using the third to kill the second in the (supposed) name of the first) resonates very well) which are very prevalent in the Republican base.
(Analogue vis-a-vis the wars: "If you won't stand behind the troops, please feel free to stand in front of them." -- with the implied result.)
> Apart from your disgusting hateful language showing your lack of
> education and manners while proving your ignorance, you have nothing
> that the Republican Party wishes to be associated. In fact, it would
> be best if you didn't vote at all because you're truly too stupid to
> exercise such an important power.
I like that you say that, but I do sometimes wonder, with a lot of what some Republicans have said on these subjects, if the only difference between them and his flaming is a matter of degree. "Sodomy is not a human right"?
(And don't get me started on the study showing that FOX News viewers are, on average, less educated than viewers of other news networks...)
> God will deal with you, as appropriate, at the proper time.
Yes He will.
But here's a hint: The fall election, though nothing to do with Celeb Apprentice, I'm beginning to have the very same feelings about as Clay vs. Arsenio.
I think that there are so many hateful swirls around in this country who really do want to "get it on" (race war, shoot the gays, etc. and so forth) and so many people who cannot stand a Black man in the White House that they will vote for Romney (clothespin firmly inserted on nose) that they'll get it close enough.
> While I will vote for Romney, he faces a difficult challenge to
> victory. I used to work deeply on matters like Electoral maps,
> demographics and such. You're not worth even the time to discuss
> these matters.
No doubt on that. I've felt for a long time that Romney is akin to Kerry, Mondale, Dole, etc.: Actors who brought the dupes along to think that there were two candidates in the election.
But this time, I do think it's different. I think there's so much swirling around right now that something (violent) is about to happen.
Mike
> Excuse me, I doubt you will find a more conservative Republican than
> myself. You may not find someone with my degree of political and tv
> expertise as well.
You know, if you weren't in this thread, I probably would openly challenge Red Tuna to come to my locale and try to blow away a Commie kike liberal *runs through the checklist - did I get them all?* ass.
I know, from our discussions in other newsgroups, that you are a conservative Republican and that you are about as tolerant as they come on these matters. None of this applies to you personally.
But it's attitudes like his (and even if the asshole is trolling, those attitudes are very common in the base in which "God, Gays, and Guns" (more, using the third to kill the second in the (supposed) name of the first) resonates very well) which are very prevalent in the Republican base.
(Analogue vis-a-vis the wars: "If you won't stand behind the troops, please feel free to stand in front of them." -- with the implied result.)
> Apart from your disgusting hateful language showing your lack of
> education and manners while proving your ignorance, you have nothing
> that the Republican Party wishes to be associated. In fact, it would
> be best if you didn't vote at all because you're truly too stupid to
> exercise such an important power.
I like that you say that, but I do sometimes wonder, with a lot of what some Republicans have said on these subjects, if the only difference between them and his flaming is a matter of degree. "Sodomy is not a human right"?
(And don't get me started on the study showing that FOX News viewers are, on average, less educated than viewers of other news networks...)
> God will deal with you, as appropriate, at the proper time.
Yes He will.
But here's a hint: The fall election, though nothing to do with Celeb Apprentice, I'm beginning to have the very same feelings about as Clay vs. Arsenio.
I think that there are so many hateful swirls around in this country who really do want to "get it on" (race war, shoot the gays, etc. and so forth) and so many people who cannot stand a Black man in the White House that they will vote for Romney (clothespin firmly inserted on nose) that they'll get it close enough.
> While I will vote for Romney, he faces a difficult challenge to
> victory. I used to work deeply on matters like Electoral maps,
> demographics and such. You're not worth even the time to discuss
> these matters.
No doubt on that. I've felt for a long time that Romney is akin to Kerry, Mondale, Dole, etc.: Actors who brought the dupes along to think that there were two candidates in the election.
But this time, I do think it's different. I think there's so much swirling around right now that something (violent) is about to happen.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
May 21, 2012, 3:42:48 PM5/21/12
to bob...@verizon.net
On Monday, May 21, 2012 9:24:11 AM UTC-7, Bob Rudd wrote:
> I believe it was a combination that Arsenio getting back into the talk
> show business being able to help Trump (think about it...first show
> first guest is Magic and second guest is Trump), as well
> as...sadly...IMHO, I don't think Trump wanted a gay guy to win.
And, IMHO, that's two for two with Clay Aiken. Trump can couch that as a personal decision and get away with it -- it's his $250K.
The thing is, we all know Trump is VERY ACTIVE in the political sphere for the Republican Party.
> I've come to the conclusion, looking over all the past winners that
> IMHO, Celebrity Apprentice is the closest thing to a predetermined and
> fixed reality show on tv. I'm done with it now. Not because I'm a
> Claymate but because the pattern as I see it, indicates Trump always
> goes with the most popular of the final two and whom can likely help
> him most, personally, in the short and long-term.
What disgusts me more about this season (because I do have the belief that Apprentice is rigged, but since it was (originally) a job interview for Trump, Trump can do as he pleases with it) is that the whole process was allowed to be dragged through the mud (so badly in that at least four contestants quit) while Trump just sat back and puffed his metaphorical cigar.
Mike
> I believe it was a combination that Arsenio getting back into the talk
> show business being able to help Trump (think about it...first show
> first guest is Magic and second guest is Trump), as well
> as...sadly...IMHO, I don't think Trump wanted a gay guy to win.
And, IMHO, that's two for two with Clay Aiken. Trump can couch that as a personal decision and get away with it -- it's his $250K.
The thing is, we all know Trump is VERY ACTIVE in the political sphere for the Republican Party.
> I've come to the conclusion, looking over all the past winners that
> IMHO, Celebrity Apprentice is the closest thing to a predetermined and
> fixed reality show on tv. I'm done with it now. Not because I'm a
> Claymate but because the pattern as I see it, indicates Trump always
> goes with the most popular of the final two and whom can likely help
> him most, personally, in the short and long-term.
What disgusts me more about this season (because I do have the belief that Apprentice is rigged, but since it was (originally) a job interview for Trump, Trump can do as he pleases with it) is that the whole process was allowed to be dragged through the mud (so badly in that at least four contestants quit) while Trump just sat back and puffed his metaphorical cigar.
Mike
Message has been deleted
David E. Powell
May 21, 2012, 11:00:19 PM5/21/12
to
Trump might have given it to Arsenio was that he was the only one who
effectively stood up to Aubrey O'Day.
That, I think, went a long way with Donald Trump.
darkst...@gmail.com
May 22, 2012, 3:29:43 PM5/22/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 8:00:19 PM UTC-7, David E. Powell wrote:
> Well outside of the negative comments on here, I think a big reason
> Trump might have given it to Arsenio was that he was the only one who
> effectively stood up to Aubrey O'Day.
>
> That, I think, went a long way with Donald Trump.
That would include Trump himself, you realize!
> Well outside of the negative comments on here, I think a big reason
> Trump might have given it to Arsenio was that he was the only one who
> effectively stood up to Aubrey O'Day.
>
> That, I think, went a long way with Donald Trump.
What he forgot, cleanly, was that this was to be for charity -- so much so that one person broke down and cried when that person won a sizable sum for that person's charity!
He then just let it become a competition of who could be the biggest bitch, and the rest began to scurry away.
And Trump just sat back and puffed his metaphorical cigar.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
May 22, 2012, 3:26:54 PM5/22/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 7:34:48 PM UTC-7, Bob Rudd wrote:
> percentage of wack jobs like the guy who began this exchange.
But that small percentage of wack jobs is, at least by my read of it, the group that is getting a lot of power and traction within the Republican Party.
For example, there's a preacher, I believe he was in NC, who recently said he wanted to take all the GLBT's, fence them in with an electric fence, and starve them to death.
> Frankly, there is no room for him, or Colin Powell, as representatives of
> either extreme in the Republican Party. Let the other guy go join
> the Neo-Nazis and Powell just become the Democrat he has always been.
That'd be understandable on both ends.
> >But it's attitudes like his (and even if the asshole is trolling, those attitudes are very common in the base in which "God, Gays, and Guns" (more, using the third to kill the second in the (supposed) name of the first) resonates very well) which are very prevalent in the Republican base.
> >
> >(Analogue vis-a-vis the wars: "If you won't stand behind the troops, please feel free to stand in front of them." -- with the implied result.)
>
> That's not our base though Mike. It really is not. I should know and
> I do know.
Then the base needs to step up or be overshadowed. Not saying that to be against you -- but the base is being too silent on those matters.
> >> Apart from your disgusting hateful language showing your lack of
> >> education and manners while proving your ignorance, you have nothing
> >> that the Republican Party wishes to be associated. In fact, it would
> >> be best if you didn't vote at all because you're truly too stupid to
> >> exercise such an important power.
> >
> >I like that you say that, but I do sometimes wonder, with a lot of what some Republicans have said on these subjects, if the only difference between them and his flaming is a matter of degree. "Sodomy is not a human right"?
> >
> >(And don't get me started on the study showing that FOX News viewers are, on average, less educated than viewers of other news networks...)
>
> Only if you will not let me get started on the same stupidity of MSNBC
> viewers.
I believe there was actually a study done on the former. If there was one also done on MSNBC viewers to a similar result, then I apologize and retract.
> >> God will deal with you, as appropriate, at the proper time.
> >
> >Yes He will.
> >
> >But here's a hint: The fall election, though nothing to do with Celeb Apprentice, I'm beginning to have the very same feelings about as Clay vs. Arsenio.
>
> A cultural battle would have needed Santorum and Obama would have lost
> badly in the Electoral College. Romney and Obama hold the same views
> on many subjects so Election night might well go into the early
> morning before 3-5 states decide the next POTUS.
Santorum would've made it (and quite literally at this) black and white instead of the small shades of gray between Romney and Obama.
The thing is that I believe that there is so much vitriol running around _in the populace_ that things could (and IMHO will) get very ugly at the grass-roots level.
> Obama though just
> sold out his base of blacks and middle class Democrats by backing gay
> marriage and then backing away from proposing a repeal of DOMA on the
> federal level. Never going to happen and to suggest the Supreme Court
> will, ever, rule it unconstitutional is beyond ridiculously stupid.
They either have to do that or rule that the people of any given state can strip away Constitutional rights, which destroys not only the purpose, but the need, for a Constitution at all!
> Leaving it to the states, as he says, already has been overwhelming
> decided as "no" to gay marriage. Civil unions though are the absolute
> best common meeting ground for both parties if they will ignore there
> most zealot wing nuts and actually get something accomplished.
Then do away with the Establishment Clause while you are at it. There are states (a few) which accept gay marriage. So if they move into a state which does not, they are not considered married?
> >I think that there are so many hateful swirls around in this country who really do want to "get it on" (race war, shoot the gays, etc. and so forth) and so many people who cannot stand a Black man in the White House that they will vote for Romney (clothespin firmly inserted on nose) that they'll get it close enough.
>
> No Mike, I object to Obama's policies and his abdication of
> responsibilities. I will vote for Romney but I clearly would have
> preferred Santorum.
_You_ do that. Again, this does not apply to you. :)
This is one of the tricky things when we get to stuff like this. I know you are a Republican, but you are an older-school Republican. Starting with the Moral Majority, things began to change in your party -- and some of the changes, I don't believe you'd like.
> >
> >> While I will vote for Romney, he faces a difficult challenge to
> >> victory. I used to work deeply on matters like Electoral maps,
> >> demographics and such. You're not worth even the time to discuss
> >> these matters.
> >
> >No doubt on that. I've felt for a long time that Romney is akin to Kerry, Mondale, Dole, etc.: Actors who brought the dupes along to think that there were two candidates in the election.
>
> No, Mitt has smarts and talent. He's let Obama paint him as the rich
> guy which is his error right now. Various black officials though in
> recent days are calling Obama out on a number of non-racial issues
> which is interesting and causing David Axelrod to sweat buckets in bed
> at night.
He'll sweat a lot more before this is over.
> >But this time, I do think it's different. I think there's so much swirling around right now that something (violent) is about to happen.
> It's really not that much different than the last 32 years Mike.
> Reagan vs. Carter was the same election but with slightly different
> slogans and buzz words.
Not as much vitriol. If there had been, I'm not sure there would've been people who wouldn't have tried for a piece of either candidate (Carter for not being a very good President, Reagan for people "not forgetting Watergate").
> The real issue is that Trump is mischaracterized as a Republican.
> What's he ever really done or contribute to the party? The answer is
> nothing. He would never run because he would never want to have to
> fill out a campaign finance form.
He is characterized as such in the media -- whether that's an error or not is another discussion.
> He can claim he's a Republican and he can claim that he has support.
> Far cry from jumping into a race and shaking hands with the middle
> class.
He probably does.
> Trump is to Republicans like Sharpton is to Democrats. You know
> what's coming before it's said and you know the bigotry without having
> to hear another word from either of them.
Ding-dong.
The problem to me is that Trump's bigotry is a lot closer to the voice of the Republican Party than Sharpton's is to the Democrats, at least by my view of it.
Mike
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:39:31 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >I know, from our discussions in other newsgroups, that you are a conservative Republican and that you are about as tolerant as they come on these matters. None of this applies to you personally.
>
> Thanks, it means a lot. We are a tolerant lot except for a small
> wrote:
>
> >I know, from our discussions in other newsgroups, that you are a conservative Republican and that you are about as tolerant as they come on these matters. None of this applies to you personally.
>
> percentage of wack jobs like the guy who began this exchange.
But that small percentage of wack jobs is, at least by my read of it, the group that is getting a lot of power and traction within the Republican Party.
For example, there's a preacher, I believe he was in NC, who recently said he wanted to take all the GLBT's, fence them in with an electric fence, and starve them to death.
> Frankly, there is no room for him, or Colin Powell, as representatives of
> either extreme in the Republican Party. Let the other guy go join
> the Neo-Nazis and Powell just become the Democrat he has always been.
That'd be understandable on both ends.
> >But it's attitudes like his (and even if the asshole is trolling, those attitudes are very common in the base in which "God, Gays, and Guns" (more, using the third to kill the second in the (supposed) name of the first) resonates very well) which are very prevalent in the Republican base.
> >
> >(Analogue vis-a-vis the wars: "If you won't stand behind the troops, please feel free to stand in front of them." -- with the implied result.)
>
> I do know.
Then the base needs to step up or be overshadowed. Not saying that to be against you -- but the base is being too silent on those matters.
> >> Apart from your disgusting hateful language showing your lack of
> >> education and manners while proving your ignorance, you have nothing
> >> that the Republican Party wishes to be associated. In fact, it would
> >> be best if you didn't vote at all because you're truly too stupid to
> >> exercise such an important power.
> >
> >I like that you say that, but I do sometimes wonder, with a lot of what some Republicans have said on these subjects, if the only difference between them and his flaming is a matter of degree. "Sodomy is not a human right"?
> >
> >(And don't get me started on the study showing that FOX News viewers are, on average, less educated than viewers of other news networks...)
>
> viewers.
I believe there was actually a study done on the former. If there was one also done on MSNBC viewers to a similar result, then I apologize and retract.
> >> God will deal with you, as appropriate, at the proper time.
> >
> >Yes He will.
> >
> >But here's a hint: The fall election, though nothing to do with Celeb Apprentice, I'm beginning to have the very same feelings about as Clay vs. Arsenio.
>
> badly in the Electoral College. Romney and Obama hold the same views
> on many subjects so Election night might well go into the early
> morning before 3-5 states decide the next POTUS.
Santorum would've made it (and quite literally at this) black and white instead of the small shades of gray between Romney and Obama.
The thing is that I believe that there is so much vitriol running around _in the populace_ that things could (and IMHO will) get very ugly at the grass-roots level.
> Obama though just
> sold out his base of blacks and middle class Democrats by backing gay
> marriage and then backing away from proposing a repeal of DOMA on the
> federal level. Never going to happen and to suggest the Supreme Court
> will, ever, rule it unconstitutional is beyond ridiculously stupid.
They either have to do that or rule that the people of any given state can strip away Constitutional rights, which destroys not only the purpose, but the need, for a Constitution at all!
> Leaving it to the states, as he says, already has been overwhelming
> decided as "no" to gay marriage. Civil unions though are the absolute
> best common meeting ground for both parties if they will ignore there
> most zealot wing nuts and actually get something accomplished.
Then do away with the Establishment Clause while you are at it. There are states (a few) which accept gay marriage. So if they move into a state which does not, they are not considered married?
> >I think that there are so many hateful swirls around in this country who really do want to "get it on" (race war, shoot the gays, etc. and so forth) and so many people who cannot stand a Black man in the White House that they will vote for Romney (clothespin firmly inserted on nose) that they'll get it close enough.
>
> responsibilities. I will vote for Romney but I clearly would have
> preferred Santorum.
_You_ do that. Again, this does not apply to you. :)
This is one of the tricky things when we get to stuff like this. I know you are a Republican, but you are an older-school Republican. Starting with the Moral Majority, things began to change in your party -- and some of the changes, I don't believe you'd like.
> >
> >> While I will vote for Romney, he faces a difficult challenge to
> >> victory. I used to work deeply on matters like Electoral maps,
> >> demographics and such. You're not worth even the time to discuss
> >> these matters.
> >
> >No doubt on that. I've felt for a long time that Romney is akin to Kerry, Mondale, Dole, etc.: Actors who brought the dupes along to think that there were two candidates in the election.
>
> guy which is his error right now. Various black officials though in
> recent days are calling Obama out on a number of non-racial issues
> which is interesting and causing David Axelrod to sweat buckets in bed
> at night.
He'll sweat a lot more before this is over.
> >But this time, I do think it's different. I think there's so much swirling around right now that something (violent) is about to happen.
> Reagan vs. Carter was the same election but with slightly different
> slogans and buzz words.
Not as much vitriol. If there had been, I'm not sure there would've been people who wouldn't have tried for a piece of either candidate (Carter for not being a very good President, Reagan for people "not forgetting Watergate").
> The real issue is that Trump is mischaracterized as a Republican.
> What's he ever really done or contribute to the party? The answer is
> nothing. He would never run because he would never want to have to
> fill out a campaign finance form.
He is characterized as such in the media -- whether that's an error or not is another discussion.
> He can claim he's a Republican and he can claim that he has support.
> Far cry from jumping into a race and shaking hands with the middle
> class.
He probably does.
> Trump is to Republicans like Sharpton is to Democrats. You know
> what's coming before it's said and you know the bigotry without having
> to hear another word from either of them.
Ding-dong.
The problem to me is that Trump's bigotry is a lot closer to the voice of the Republican Party than Sharpton's is to the Democrats, at least by my view of it.
Mike
David E. Powell
May 29, 2012, 8:20:28 PM5/29/12
to
Why project politics on this?
I am a Republican and would have had no problem with either contestant
winning. Your using this decision to tar everyone who registers one
way is very misplaced. If Clay had won, which I could also have seen,
I am sure some other people would have wanted Arsenio to win because
of his personal story. Either way someone is going to complain if
there are two good candidates.
I am a Republican and would have had no problem with either contestant
winning. Your using this decision to tar everyone who registers one
way is very misplaced. If Clay had won, which I could also have seen,
I am sure some other people would have wanted Arsenio to win because
of his personal story. Either way someone is going to complain if
there are two good candidates.
0 new messages