impartialobserver

I am saying that the studios have the choice whom to hire/cast and you have the choice to not consume it. Again... this is pretty simple stuff. they could be better actors or not.. that is up to the studio and the audience.

this is hardly proof of anything. If I was driving somewhere and encountered protesters.. would simply take another way.

the very few "woke" things that have popped up at my kids school do not bother me. What annoys me is the focus on testing and how data driven their curriculum. As a parent, I focus on how it is done. Getting to the end result is cool but in most things, it matters how you got to that result. Second, with even the slightest raise of a kids voice, the teachers come running and go into threat assessment mode. They are not allowed to just be kids

so you did not answer.. do you have the choice to not watch it? It does not bother me to have characters in a tv show or movie be black when maybe in the book or in previous iterations, they were white. Its about the story and how well they execute it for me.. the packaging does not mean much.

In the case of media (TV, video games, music).. do you have a choice whether to watch/read/listen to it or not? Lets keep it to narrowed down to that at first.

Yeah.. from reading some on the issue.. it appears that the OP is exaggerating a bit. Most Israelis support the war.

It is my interpretation of your (and others) rejection of wokeness that you think that you can eradicate it from society altogether. My point is that if you have the first amendment and the internet, that is impossible. To get rid of it.. you would have to "unring the bell" meaning revert back to a time when the internet did not exist. as for pushing back, feel free. Above all, I am a free speech advocate. The woke and the anti-woke should be free to express their views. as for my views.. I think folks take it a bit far. I have no issues with blacks being in commercials more often now than in the past and such. However, reparations... just cant take that idea seriously.

I do not read your posts most of the time including the one that you mention. So no, there is no connection between your aforementioned post and mine. Is that clear enough?

Yes, when I make a post.. I have a distinct focus. If you have nothing to add on to this chosen focal point.. then do not respond. Its not that complex.

I am talking about society in general.. you knew this. And yet when you move the goal posts, I am supposed to follow you. Not happening. If you can't stay on topic.. do not respond to me. Its pretty easy.. give it a try.

You keep responding... I know why. Second, you assumed that I was in agreeance with them. Assumptions are for the lazy. Well.. your secret is out. Your posts rely on assumptions and if someone points them out, you start with the name-calling and such. Because surely if someone is not you.. they fit your narrowly defined boxes. Now.. where is your usual line about CNN.

By your logic.. I should be planning for an infinite number of possible, catastrophic events. I simply do not buy into paranoia. Never have and guess what? I have a great life.

I do not think that the scenarios outlined by you are realistic. I think that you are too biased and too partisan to say anything of value. A republican could say that 3^3 = 27 and you would object.

not voting for ukraine funding does not mean that they support Putin. Maybe.. just maybe it is a sign that we want to stop spending money on someone else's battle. There is no explicit proof that Republicans are in cahoots with Putin. However, when it comes to Russia, they are simply confounding. Not really sure what they gain by having this protracted war other than pride and some new territory added to their map.

You can rely on predictions and I will base my decisions on what is. Problem solved.

I just wonder what would happen if you acted like an adult and did not respond if you did not care for the post... I know why you respond... interesting how when i point out that you rely on assumptions.. you never respond. Hmm.. that tells me that you do and just do not care for the fact that I can point it out.

however, no politician that can win could have this on his platform. We live in a short term thinking kind of world and this (above) is long term thinking. Lower budgets could (i know unrealistic and no I have not had a beer yet) lead to less taxation. Less taxation would mean more income and less complexity.

And there we go with more assumptions.. you think that I am in agreement. I simply observe and collect data, so to speak. Honestly do not agree with most of them. What would you do if you could not rely on assumptions? I am not sure I want to know the answer...

I already did... I stated that that the "democrats" that I know have variance in their views and hence not cult-like. If you do not like that... you could be grown up and keep scrolling... really

off topic ^^^ as always. You can never address my points directly. I know your types.

voting because someone has a chance is to win.. is a terrible way to go about it. If I was in control.. my first mandate would be to have every cabinet department trim its budget by 2% every year. If they can't do it... then someone else will do it for them and the cuts will be 4% or greater. Seconds, use it or lose it grant funding would cease. Finally, long term contracts would get re-examined. If you find out in year 2 of 10 that it is not working.. you should not have to continue paying in years 3 to 10.

I made a point (not in response to you.. easily proven), you responded and every time you respond.. you go off into the weeds. Pretty simple stuff honestly. why you respond is both amusing and pathetic.

Another example of your passion/zealousness getting in the way of you saying something true. I have never stated a pro-vax statement. I have said dozens of times that I did not care... "did not care" is not the same as "vaccinations are/were good"... You must have some dyslexia. Also, my comment is on how they vary in their views.. not riots. Even Chatgpt can see those two are not the same. As always, its a good thing that you are not in my office. Your irrational passion would preclude from even getting close to doing the job correctly. We are paid to get it right not be right.. How many initial claims are there in a given month is not the same as many initial claims should there be.. but you demonstrate that you could not separate the two.

I simply vote third party on most occasions. I am realistic and honest enough to know that it has no real impact on the outcome however it satisfies my conscience.

Hence why I do not support either party. If either truly wanted to decrease govt spending.. I would be on board but neither does.