All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
NOTE: Chris, what can I tell you? I do get these messages from people. As a general rule, a conservative will argue politics with you, but then be happy to have a drink with you later. Many liberals, however, don't want to know someone once they find out they are even a little conservative. This may be generalizing, but it's also generally true.
This is a liberal leaning forum here. And movie making is a liberal industry. To speak out as a conservative is perceived as being risky.
The qualifiers are all I ask! Fair enough Statements about "all" so-and-sos just tend to get my hackles up.
I don't have many friends with strong conservative viewpoints (family, though, I suppose). That really bothers me, actually. Never good to be consistently amongst homogeneous perspectives. But I'll have a drink or two with anyone!
Chris, if we lived near each other, I'd gladly have a drink or two! I have great respect for your work and opinions.
I read an article not too long ago(can't find it now), an essay by a liberal woman in New York who married a guy that turned out to be somewhat conservative. While they were dating, his politics were unknown. Never came up. All her friends loved him.
Some time after they were married, he revealed that he supported W Bush. He wasn't some Bible thumping guy, he just agreed more or less with W's approach.
She loved him, so it didn't matter to her. However, she did admit that had she known it before, she would never have dated him.
But it gets worse. When he came a little more out of his shell about his political leanings, things changed with their friends. The couple were now avoided at parties, or not invited to them.
And this caused her to do some soul searching. She realized that before her husband, she really did not know any conservatives. And if she found out someone was, she no longer wanted anything to do with them. She assumed conservatives were vile, loathsome creatures that didn't care about their fellow man.
Not every liberal thinks this way. But she had to be honest with herself: most do.
And this is one reason conservatives stay quiet here. Which Andrew takes as some kind of confirmation. But the conservatives know they will be ostracized, especially in this field.
I know it too, but sometimes I can't help myself. It is probably time for me to go back in the conservative closet, though. The Nicholl's list has been published, and I am getting contacts now. I can't let it be known that I lean conservative. It's a career killer.
I do have say on the debate: wow, biggest ass kicking in debate history. Even liberals are saying this. Leaving aside Romney, could the President have looked any worse? Couldn't look into the camera, didn't want to be there, nervous, boring. Weak. He looked weak. No wonder Putin pushes him around.
Even Bill Maher said: "I never thought I'd say this, but he really does need his teleprompter."
Labor is subject to the same forces of supply and demand as anything else. So if we have low unemployment, as we did in the 80s once the recession ended, this should lead to higher wages. Higher demand, higher prices.
Did this happen?
Well, we do have official statistics that seem to show declining real wages, something which persisted until the end of the 90s. What's going on?
Economists have always struggled to explain this. As with any macro statistical representation, numbers are subject to various interpretations. One thing virtually all serious economists agree on, even those that dislike the Reagan policies, is that these statistics are NOT a reflection of Reagan's policies.
Few people would argue that a booming economy and low unemployment would result in anything other than higher wages.
So how do we explain the stats?
Several possible explanations.
1) demographics: The children of baby boomers were hitting the job market, and younger people entering the work force make less.
2) technological innovation: technology has eliminated many mid-level jobs.
3) immigration: immigration reached numbers not seen since the 1920s. Immigrants make less money.
4) service economy: the long term trend of the US switching from industrial economy to a service economy.
I realize I have not probably satisfied your objection on lower wages. But common sense is almost irrefutable in this case. High growth in the economy and low unemployment clearly create pressure for higher wages, so most economists(not politically motivated ones, of course) agree that the decline in real wages is due to factors that are independent of economic policy and don't provide a relevant picture.
If I have time to research, I will look for links, but I have some stuff going on related to Nicholl's which is chewing up my time.
The reason I posted a link to declining wages under Reagan is because you falsely claimed everyone benefitted under Reagan, which everyone knows is false - confronted with the figures, you've just waffled for a few paragraphs and said nothing to refute it. Presumably your new stance that economics "are NOT a reflection of [enter politican here] policies", you'll refrain from your all out assault on Obama - or perhaps not. No shock there. You posited something and I debunked it.
Once again:
Quoted from kevin
Regarding the laffer: your graph proves the effectiveness of the laffer curve!
Don't you see that?
Taxes were dramatically cut, across the board, yet revenue stayed more or less the same.
The Laffer curve predicts revenue WILL INCREASE with lower, less prohibitive rates - that chart shows that claim to be false. As you see, the revenues remained "more or less the same" - which is not the principle for lowering rates. Taken in conjunction with the declining average wages under Reagan, the picture of increased income inequality becomes clear. This is something you disputed and I've debunked you again.
The deficit:
Quoted from kevin
I am not arguing for the Reagan deficits being a good thing. They were mostly the result of compromise with Congress. They didn't cut discretionary spending, but they increased military spending, and implemented tax cuts. Thus a deficit.
Changed your tune from previous responses here - simply because there's no answer to it. What you lambast Obama for is what you must lambast Reagan for.
This:
Quoted from kevin
This is a liberal leaning forum here. And movie making is a liberal industry. To speak out as a conservative is perceived as being risky.
No. God, you're such a victim, man. Nobody has any problem with conservatives. People have a problem with generalisations that are not even an accepted truism or are obscure ways of cherry picking to arrive at a predestined conclusion, like this:
Quoted from kevin
I read an article not too long ago(can't find it now), an essay by a liberal woman in New York who married a guy that turned out to be somewhat conservative. While they were dating, his politics were unknown. Never came up. All her friends loved him.
Some time after they were married, he revealed that he supported W Bush. He wasn't some Bible thumping guy, he just agreed more or less with W's approach.
She loved him, so it didn't matter to her. However, she did admit that had she known it before, she would never have dated him.
But it gets worse. When he came a little more out of his shell about his political leanings, things changed with their friends. The couple were now avoided at parties, or not invited to them.
And this caused her to do some soul searching. She realized that before her husband, she really did not know any conservatives. And if she found out someone was, she no longer wanted anything to do with them. She assumed conservatives were vile, loathsome creatures that didn't care about their fellow man.
Not every liberal thinks this way. But she had to be honest with herself: most do.
And this is one reason conservatives stay quiet here. Which Andrew takes as some kind of confirmation. But the conservatives know they will be ostracized, especially in this field.
And no one assumes that article was present in anything other than a "severely conservative" publication. And no one assumes, like you, (other than fellow tea partiers) that liberals won't drink with conservatives. That comment is almost as pitiful as the time you tried to say black people don't like liberals.
This:
Quoted from kevin
The Nicholl's list has been published, and I am getting contacts now. I can't let it be known that I lean conservative. It's a career killer.
First off, congrats and best of luck with it.
But... You lean conservative? YOU LEAN CONSERVATIVE? Remarkable lack of self-awareness. You're not even a conservative. You're a far right conspiratorial tea partier - massive difference. Eisenhower was a conservative. You're Reagan and then some.
And finally this:
Quoted from kevin
FINAL NOTE: What is this cr**, Andrew, of looking up someone's picture and then trying to disparage him based on age, or whatever you had in mind? What's wrong with you? You think because I few liberals support your position, surprise surprise, that justifies that? I am going to assume something got into you and you regret that. I'm not bothered by it, but disappointed in you.
Bit weird that you jump to the conclusion I'm "looking up someone's picture". No, Kevin, I wouldn't look you up - I just remember you posting a picture on SIMPLY SCRIPTS of you with Phil and Janet. I wasn't disparaging your position based on your aged face - I was simply mocking you and equating your age with expectations of a little more maturity. I don't need to disparage your aged face to highlight your ridiculous positions - you do that all by yourself.
Sorry to burst the bubble as well... but nothing "got into" me and in no way do I regret teasing you and dishing it out a little as you've been doing for some time with your warped perceptions of how much information you possess and your supposed superiority in debating - tacitly legitimated by way of age. I simply turned your own perceived strength (age) and shone a light on it when we assess some of the immature comments you've flooded this thread (and many others) with. Most of our discussions revolve around you spouting several odd positions and me trying to pacify you. But, I thought I'd turn your own tactics on you and correctly assumed your ego would be in bed with huge sensitivities - which it is.
And as for "several people" messaging you with support and encouragement? Well, sometimes you've got to be cruel to be kind. Judging from your rather muted response (and professional concerns), it appears I may have knocked some sense in to you. By all means let's debate serious political matters, but don't expect to act irrationally and to be treated rationally. If you can't take the heat of your own actions, Kevin, then it's definitely best you stay out of the kitchen.
Good night for Romney - he attacked very well. Obama was too timid in defending his positions and going after some of the false claims from Romney i.e. his tax cuts which he referred to as "tax relief" being unfunded.
We definitely disagree on this, but I believe Obama to be on the right side of the argument and if he can effectively respond in debates 2 & 3, it'll smudge out the gains from debate 1. Also, the precedent has been set whereby challengers do very well in opening debates (Reagan '84, Bush '04) but it won't necessarily translate to votes.
Romney still supports:
- An unfunded (no details other than vague pledges to close unspecified loopholes) tax cut that will permanently reduce the top rate to 28%, resulting in a "broadening of the tax base" or in layman's terms: more taxes from the 47%. - Voucherising Medicare and therefore endangering an "entitlement" program people have funded throughout their working lives, and; - This is before we even get on to foreign policy - the chances of war with Iran will increase enormously under a President Romney. That would be a disaster just like Iraq.
"I don't need to disparage your aged face to highlight your ridiculous positions - you do that all by yourself." _ Andrew
I should think this is proof enough, Andrew. If you were winning the argument, there would be no need to go there. What's next? Gonna tell me mother wears army boots? You've outed yourself for what you are.
"You're a far right conspiratorial tea partier - massive difference. Eisenhower was a conservative. You're Reagan and then some." _ Andrew
Let's see. As you know, I am pro choice, ok with gay marriage, support social security, support reasonable regulations of the financial industry. I have never once advocated any conspiracy, unless you have some special Andrew definition of the word. I would say those positions put me pretty close to the middle. What you don't understand is there is a difference between advocating certain positions strongly and in adopting extreme positions. None of my positions are extreme, but again, you've outed yourself with your petulant name calling. Should we fight at recess?
refuted my points? I don't think so.
laffer curve: cutting taxes significantly but not having a corresponding fall in revenue proves the primary argument of the theory. If it were not true, cutting taxes would only result in less government revenue. Try again.
falling wages: again, this requires a little sophistication, which is difficult when you're talking to someone who simply believes Bush drove the economy into a ditch.
Statistics don't always tell the story you think they tell, unless you take a deeper look. Is it really your position that high economic growth and low unemployment will create declining wages? Is it really? I mean put aside the partisan desire to prove a point, just for a moment...is that really your position?
I've already showed you early how stats can be deceiving. For example, blacks moved into the middle class in record numbers in the 1980s. And yet black poverty levels increased. How to explain this inconsistency? Easy. Dramatic rise in birth rates to single mothers. Which had nothing to do with Reagan.
People who drink 6 cups of coffee a day are more likely to develop heart disease. So coffee must lead to heart disease, right? Not so fast. People who drink 6 cups of coffee are also more likely to smoke, to drink heavy, to work in pressure jobs, to work in a sedentary position, and so on.
There are causes to the statistics that seem to show a decline in wages in the 1980s. Do you want to look into those causes? Or do you want to accept that high economic growth and low unemployment somehow reverses the law of supply and demand and leads to lower wages? You can choose your position, but if you ignore your partisan leanings and follow logic, you will look for a deeper explanation for those stats.
The deficit. Again, Obama's deficit does not seem to bother you. But I don't want to follow the same hypocrisy you have. I will not defend the Reagan deficits. They pale in comparison to Obama, and they were the result of a compromise with Democrats in Congress, but I won't defend them.
I am not completely against deficit spending. I think as a temporary fix, it can be useful to stimulate an economy. Using these deficits to stimulate the economy through tax cuts is more efficient, as it pumps money instantly into the economy. Obviously it is more fair as well.
Using deficits to stimulate with spending is more of a problem. As Obama found out, there is no such thing as "shovel ready" projects. Getting all that money into the economy was difficult.
And it leads to corruption, as well as rewarding poor economic behavior. That's why Obama spent it foolishly on green projects, and most of that went to companies that contributed heavily to his campaign, rather than those on a sound footing. Terrible policy.
Spending was also used to prop up government institutions that had been making poor financial decisions for decades. So instead of this being a chance to stop wasteful spending, it just entrenched it further.
Even the most ardent fans of Reagan are not fans of the deficit he ran. But could anyone with a sound mind compare that to what is going on now? Have you looked at the scale of spending? Man, we're similar to Spain, and Greece. More failed liberal states.
taking the heat: For the most, I'm just going to let the record above speak for itself. I did tease you with a fictional dialogue. I expected you might reply in kind.
When you started talking about my picture, and my age, well, that's a little weird, Andrew. The internet is an anonymous place. Janet took the pictures, and I'm fine with that, but those were posted a year ago. Really weird, dude. And then you doubled down with talk of an aged face, or whatever. You're going to some weird places, and sound a little unhinged to be honest. Not one to be talking about heat, by any means. Sorry if I upset you.
I won't even speak on policies since this whole thing seems like a timesuck of arguments no one will ever win. Opinions won't be changed.
Romney spoke better. But he said less.
He kept saying he was going to create jobs and all these buzz words without explaining how. As Obama pointed out, he kept talking about all the things he is going to repeal on his first day in office, but never explained what he will replace them with.
Obama did not make much eye contact with Romney, which gives audiences the impression of weakness, so, even though Romney seemed to be sweating a little more, he still looked in control when he looked Obama in the eye throughout the debate.
I honestly think that Americans expect a president to come in and make the world all hugs and smiles in four years and it's ridiculous. Obama obviously didn't do that and another 4 years won't do it either. Go ahead and give Romney 8 years and it won't happen.
People get hung up on things that presidents have little control over when they really should be sweating the small stuff. Things that will change our day to day lives while the president is in office.
Obviously the big picture is extremely important, but no single president is going to fix those things when the parties only work to harm one another. It's pathetic.
'Artist' is not a term you should use to refer to yourself. Let others, and your work, do it for you.
"I don't need to disparage your aged face to highlight your ridiculous positions - you do that all by yourself." _ Andrew
I should think this is proof enough, Andrew. If you were winning the argument, there would be no need to go there. What's next? Gonna tell me mother wears army boots? You've outed yourself for what you are.
"You're a far right conspiratorial tea partier - massive difference. Eisenhower was a conservative. You're Reagan and then some." _ Andrew
Let's see. As you know, I am pro choice, ok with gay marriage, support social security, support reasonable regulations of the financial industry. I have never once advocated any conspiracy, unless you have some special Andrew definition of the word. I would say those positions put me pretty close to the middle. What you don't understand is there is a difference between advocating certain positions strongly and in adopting extreme positions. None of my positions are extreme, but again, you've outed yourself with your petulant name calling. Should we fight at recess?
refuted my points? I don't think so.
laffer curve: cutting taxes significantly but not having a corresponding fall in revenue proves the primary argument of the theory. If it were not true, cutting taxes would only result in less government revenue. Try again.
falling wages: again, this requires a little sophistication, which is difficult when you're talking to someone who simply believes Bush drove the economy into a ditch.
Statistics don't always tell the story you think they tell, unless you take a deeper look. Is it really your position that high economic growth and low unemployment will create declining wages? Is it really? I mean put aside the partisan desire to prove a point, just for a moment...is that really your position?
I've already showed you early how stats can be deceiving. For example, blacks moved into the middle class in record numbers in the 1980s. And yet black poverty levels increased. How to explain this inconsistency? Easy. Dramatic rise in birth rates to single mothers. Which had nothing to do with Reagan.
People who drink 6 cups of coffee a day are more likely to develop heart disease. So coffee must lead to heart disease, right? Not so fast. People who drink 6 cups of coffee are also more likely to smoke, to drink heavy, to work in pressure jobs, to work in a sedentary position, and so on.
There are causes to the statistics that seem to show a decline in wages in the 1980s. Do you want to look into those causes? Or do you want to accept that high economic growth and low unemployment somehow reverses the law of supply and demand and leads to lower wages? You can choose your position, but if you ignore your partisan leanings and follow logic, you will look for a deeper explanation for those stats.
The deficit. Again, Obama's deficit does not seem to bother you. But I don't want to follow the same hypocrisy you have. I will not defend the Reagan deficits. They pale in comparison to Obama, and they were the result of a compromise with Democrats in Congress, but I won't defend them.
I am not completely against deficit spending. I think as a temporary fix, it can be useful to stimulate an economy. Using these deficits to stimulate the economy through tax cuts is more efficient, as it pumps money instantly into the economy. Obviously it is more fair as well.
Using deficits to stimulate with spending is more of a problem. As Obama found out, there is no such thing as "shovel ready" projects. Getting all that money into the economy was difficult.
And it leads to corruption, as well as rewarding poor economic behavior. That's why Obama spent it foolishly on green projects, and most of that went to companies that contributed heavily to his campaign, rather than those on a sound footing. Terrible policy.
Spending was also used to prop up government institutions that had been making poor financial decisions for decades. So instead of this being a chance to stop wasteful spending, it just entrenched it further.
Even the most ardent fans of Reagan are not fans of the deficit he ran. But could anyone with a sound mind compare that to what is going on now? Have you looked at the scale of spending? Man, we're similar to Spain, and Greece. More failed liberal states.
taking the heat: For the most, I'm just going to let the record above speak for itself. I did tease you with a fictional dialogue. I expected you might reply in kind.
When you started talking about my picture, and my age, well, that's a little weird, Andrew. The internet is an anonymous place. Janet took the pictures, and I'm fine with that, but those were posted a year ago. Really weird, dude. And then you doubled down with talk of an aged face, or whatever. You're going to some weird places, and sound a little unhinged to be honest. Not one to be talking about heat, by any means. Sorry if I upset you.
You're flat out wrong on the wages and tax revenue issues. No shame in it, but you should stop wriggling when all you do is further the fact you're wrong.
There's not an awful lot to say to dissuade you from your stances when you're so indebted to delusion on a great many points - both political and personal.
I'll give you credit for playing the victim card with such evident relish, though. You have become a personification of the Etch A Sketch we've heard so much of this campaign. For you, each post is in isolation and you bear no responsibility for any previous positions or conspiratorial posts, like your unreasonable views on Libya where you feel you've unearthed a conspiracy; namely a government cover up by evil old Obama.
And hell, I'm happy to triple down on your aged face when it makes you get so sanctimonious. Most amusing.
Oh, and:
Quoted from kevin
Sorry if I upset you.
you keep believing that, sweetie - perhaps I'll print this off and place in that Kevin scrapbook I've been building up all my life.
Enjoy your week away from the thread. And seriously, good luck with Nicholl's.
Pages: 
Author
The 2012 US Presidential Election
Statements about "all" so-and-sos just tend to get my hackles up.
Logged
Locked Board