Spin-off debate...I've got the answer!! [Archive] - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Trishalla

08-23-2005, 05:54 PM

Let's put all the pieces together:

1. John Amos played Florida's husband on Maude and Good Times
2. Florida has mentioned being a maid before on Good Times
3. The fact Florida Evans was played by Esther Rolle on both shows
4. It would be odd for two shows to have characters with the same names
5. If this isn't a spinoff, why was the Florida character phased out of Maude?

What I believe happened is, the Florida character was popular on Maude that they decided to do a spinoff and used the script the Good Times script. It's not an factualy accurate spinoff, but it's a spinoff none the less.

NO
ONCE AGAIN

GOOD TIMES WAS ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF HAPPENING
AND IF YOU LOOK AT A POST IN THIS FORUM THERE IS A LINK TO A INTERVIEW WITH ERIC MONTE AND HE SAYS IT IS NOT A SPIN OFF
AND YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH
THAT HIM AND MIKE EVANS CREATED THE SHOW

Brian Damage

08-23-2005, 08:23 PM

NO
ONCE AGAIN

GOOD TIMES WAS ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF HAPPENING
AND IF YOU LOOK AT A POST IN THIS FORUM THERE IS A LINK TO A INTERVIEW WITH ERIC MONTE AND HE SAYS IT IS NOT A SPIN OFF
AND YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH
THAT HIM AND MIKE EVANS CREATED THE SHOW

You either don't listen or refuse to listen. We all know that GT was created before Maude. Big whoop dee doo. That doesn't negate Florida Evans used on both shows.

James"Thunder"Early

08-23-2005, 08:40 PM

Yeah - but they didn't try to do the Two Darrins thing and have her named Florida.

By that time, Florida was living in Chicago with her family doing the spinoff - right Sol? :lol:Good angle, TripperFan

Ireneparalegal

08-23-2005, 09:44 PM

You either don't listen or refuse to listen. We all know that GT was created before Maude. Big whoop dee doo. That doesn't negate Florida Evans used on both shows.
BIG WHOOP DEE DOO!!!!!! You so crazy Brian...You got me rolling on the floor!!!! :rock: You put it in thee most simple phrase yet!!!!! You said what I had been thinking but YOU SAID IT BEST!!!! :wave:

GeeBee

08-23-2005, 10:08 PM

As long as one is consistent and concedes that All In The Family is not a sitcom since Caroll O'Connor said it wasn't. I know this isn't really the place for this subject, so look for more about it on the All In The Family board. :)

Ireneparalegal

08-23-2005, 10:12 PM

I will speak on Soloman's behalf (is this okay w/you soloman?)...anyhow, i believe since Carroll made that comment, it doesn't make a difference. IF THE PRODUCERS of the show said it, then it makes a difference...according to Soloman (not me mind you) the producers of GT stated it is NOT A SPIN-OFF. That's the difference between your line of thinking and Soloman's. My opinion is GT is a spin-off due to the character having the same name on Maude / Good Times

GeeBee

08-23-2005, 10:26 PM

Ireneparalegal

08-23-2005, 10:46 PM

But would he agree that the website I found with that statement was a GREAT PIECE of Info for me to use to defend my argument? LOL
No Doubt...and I don't mean the musical group either...LOL

GeeBee

08-23-2005, 10:51 PM

Definition of spin-off, according to DictionaryLaborLawTalk.com

A spin-off in television is a new series which contains either characters or theme elements from an old series. They are particularly common in situation comedy.

Here are the list of spin-offs that it names:

* From Absolutely!
o Mr. Don and Mr. George

* From Alice
o Flo

* From All in the Family
o The Jeffersons
+ Checking In
o Archie Bunker's Place
o Maude
+ Good Times
o Gloria
o 704 Hauser

* From American Idol
o American Juniors

* From Another World
o Somerset
o Texas

* From Babylon 5
o Crusade

* From Baywatch
o Baywatch Nights

* From Barney Miller
o Fish

* From Beavis and Butt-head
o Daria

* From Beverly Hills 90210
o Melrose Place
+ Models Inc.

* From The Bill
o Murder Investigation Team

* From Buffy the Vampire Slayer
o Angel

* From The Carol Burnett Show
o Mama's Family

* From Casualty
o Holby City

* From Cheers
o Frasier
+ Girlfriends
o The Tortellis

* From The Cosby Show
o A Different World

* From CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
o CSI: Miami
o CSI: NY
o Cold Case

* From Dallas
o Knots Landing

* From The Danny Thomas Show / Make Room For Daddy
o The Andy Griffith Show
+ Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.
+ Mayberry R.F.D.

* From Diff'rent Strokes
o The Facts of Life

* American Whose Line is it Anyway?
o Drew Carey's Green Screen Show

* From Everybody Loves Raymond
o The King of Queens

* From The Flintstones
o The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm Show
o The Flintstones Comedy Hour
o The New Fred and Barney Show
o The Flintstones Comedy Show
o The Flintstone Kids
o Cave Kids

* From The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
o In the House

* From Friends
o Joey

* From The Golden Girls
o Empty Nest
+ Nurses
o The Golden Palace

* From Good Morning, Miss Bliss
o Saved by the Bell
+ Saved by the Bell: The New Class
+ Saved by the Bell: The College Years

* From Growing Pains
o Just the Ten of Us

* From He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (1983)
o She-Ra: Princess of Power

* From Hercules: The Legendary Journeys
o Xena: Warrior Princess
o Young Hercules

* From Home Improvement
o Soul Man

* From Late Night with David Letterman
o The Late Show with David Letterman
+ The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn (was originally The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder)
o Late Night with Conan O'Brien

* From Law & Order
o Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
o Law & Order: Criminal Intent
o Law & Order: Trial by Jury (to premiere in January 2005)

* From Live with Regis and Kathie Lee
o Live with Regis and Kelly

* From Love, American Style
o Happy Days
+ Laverne and Shirley
+ Mork & Mindy
+ Joanie Loves Chachi
+ Blansky's Beauties
+ Out of the Blue

* From Man About the House
o George and Mildred
o Robin's Nest

* From Married... with Children
o Top of the Heap
+ Vinnie & Bobby

* From The Mary Tyler Moore Show
o Rhoda
o Lou Grant
o The Betty White Show
o Phyllis

* From M*A*S*H
o Trapper John M.D.
o After M*A*S*H
o W*A*L*T*E*R

* From Match Game
o Family Feud (1976-1985), hosted by Richard Dawson (who also hosted the show in 1994-1995)

* From Moesha
o The Parkers

* From Oprah
o Dr. Phil

* From Party of Five
o Time of Your Life

* From Perfect Strangers
o Family Matters

* From Porridge
o Going Straight

* From The Practice
o Boston Legal

* From The Price is Right (1956)
o The New Price is Right (1972) (was changed to The Price is Right in 1973; expanded to one hour in 1975)
+ The Price is Right (1985-1986), a 30-minute version hosted by Tom Kennedy
+ The New Price is Right (1994-1995), a 30-minute version hosted by Doug Davidson

* From Rugrats
o All Grown Up!

* From Seinfeld
o Curb Your Enthusiasm

* From 60 Minutes
o 60 Minutes II (now 60 Minutes Wednesday)

* From Soap
o Benson

* From Star Trek
o Star Trek: The Animated Series
o Star Trek: The Next Generation
o Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
o Star Trek: Voyager
o Star Trek: Enterprise

* From Stargate SG-1
o Stargate Atlantis

* From Three's Company
o The Ropers
o Three's A Crowd

* From The Tracey Ullman Show
o The Simpsons

* From Wacky Races
o The Perils Of Penelope Pitstop
o Dastardly and Muttley in their Flying Machines

* From Who Wants to Be a Millionaire
o Who Wants to Be a Super Millionaire

* From WKRP in Cincinnati
o The New WKRP in Cincinnati

* From The X-Files
o The Lone Gunmen

Read more:

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/List_of_television_spin-offs

Ireneparalegal

08-23-2005, 11:07 PM

BTW: it isn't gonna work for our cause in Retro's eyes...I had inserted a similar argument using another website's info and still...here we are arguing!!! LOL MAKE IT GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEEEEEEEEEEEZE. LOL

TVFactFan

08-24-2005, 12:10 AM

If Amos character had the name James on Maude also, i wouldn't be debating this. So there will always be something to debate because his name was Henry on Maude

Ireneparalegal

08-24-2005, 12:36 AM

What was James Evans' middle name? LOL

TVFactFan

08-24-2005, 12:48 AM

What was James Evans' middle name? LOL

I don't think it was ever mentioned

GeeBee

08-24-2005, 12:49 AM

James Henry Evans.

TVFactFan

08-24-2005, 12:55 AM

James Henry Evans.

Well explain to me why Florida called him HENRY from 1972-74 and James from 1974-76? Talk to me-lol

Ireneparalegal

08-24-2005, 02:07 AM

Because she decided if they were going to move to Chicago, it be best that Henry change his name too...and they forget all about Maude, because she was just a crazy white lady...so the Evans' decided to start fresh....at the bottom. LOL

Vince 887

08-24-2005, 02:15 AM

Florida was a more sassy Charecter when she was on Maude..I remember she wanted to place a bet on the racetrack and Maude was ticked LOL

GeeBee

08-24-2005, 02:28 AM

Well explain to me why Florida called him HENRY from 1972-74 and James from 1974-76? Talk to me-lol

Why not? In the early episodes, they often called the oldest son "Junior" instead of "J.J."

People sometimes do have more than one name or title and get called different ones at different times.

Ireneparalegal

08-24-2005, 02:11 PM

Maybe they decided to change the name of Henry to James so that the character of JJ can be known as Junior!!!!! You can't call a character JJ (to mean James Jr.) if there is no James Sr. BY GEORGE I THINK SHE'S GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!

Trishalla

08-24-2005, 02:35 PM

You either don't listen or refuse to listen. We all know that GT was created before Maude. Big whoop dee doo. That doesn't negate Florida Evans used on both shows.

to different people with the same name
does not make it a spin off

its just not a spin off
as much as you all want it to be

but I'm done with this

this topic always turns into a monster of a thread

Brian Damage

08-24-2005, 03:27 PM

to different people with the same name
does not make it a spin off

its just not a spin off
as much as you all want it to be

but I'm done with this

this topic always turns into a monster of a thread

It is a spinoff as much as YOU don't want it to be. Your logic makes no sense. You said two different people with same name doesn't make it a spinoff. First off, it isn't a different person, it is the same exact actor....Esther Rolle. That's like Jackie Gleason in a new sitcom named Ralph Kramden, Carroll O'Conner as Archie Bunker, Bill Cosby as Cliff Huxtable, Mary Tyler Moore as Mary Richards....IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Brian Damage

08-24-2005, 03:35 PM

GeeBee

08-24-2005, 04:15 PM

Well, according to DictionaryLaborLawTalk.com, it doesn't even have to have the exact same characters to make it a spin-off. It lists several types of spin-offs and Good Times would fall into one of those categories whether the characters were the same or not.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/List_of_television_spin-offs

TVFactFan

08-24-2005, 07:18 PM

Brian Damage

08-24-2005, 07:35 PM

I don't recall, but I swear I could've heard it.

Trishalla

08-25-2005, 01:23 PM

You keep dismissing these facts....

1. Florida Evans played by Esther Rolle on both sitcoms.

2. John Amos playing Esther's Husband on both shows

3. Florida was a maid on Maude and an ex maid on GT.

4. Florida had 3 children on both shows

5. Amos was named Henry on Maude, yet his middle name was Henry and his father was named Henry as well.

Listen Ok

it would be different if they took every aspect of the Florida Charactor played in Maude and Brought it all to Good Times

but they did not because Good Times was already in the process of happening.

But they didn't, Because if they used the same basis of the florida charactor from Maude, The show would not even have been called "Good Times" it would be about Ester Rolle being a Maid with a husband named Henry and three kids.

Now with that said, do you think that if that was the basis of the sitcom it would even last a year during that time in the 70's Probably not.

The fact remains that the Creation of Good Times was already in the Process of happening Before Maude and the concept of the Charactor Florida Evans was created before Florida the Maid on Maude.

Sorry your just not going to change my mind about it.

So its just not a spin off
even the Creator Eric Monte will you tell that

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gif

TVFactFan

08-25-2005, 01:32 PM

Listen Ok

it would be different if they took every aspect of the Florida Charactor played in Maude and Brought it all to Good Times

but they did not because Good Times was already in the process of happening.

But they didn't, Because if they used the same basis of the florida charactor from Maude, The show would not even have been called "Good Times" it would be about Ester Rolle being a Maid with a husband named Henry and three kids.

Now with that said, do you think that if that was the basis of the sitcom it would even last a year during that time in the 70's Probably not.

The fact remains that the Creation of Good Times was already in the Process of happening Before Maude and the concept of the Charactor Florida Evans was created before Florida the Maid on Maude.

Sorry your just not going to change my mind about it.

So its just not a spin off
even the Creator Eric Monte will you tell that

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gif

You tell him Trishilla, lol

Dr. Thong

08-25-2005, 06:32 PM

Ireneparalegal

08-25-2005, 06:39 PM

TVFactFan

08-26-2005, 04:20 PM

Of course Eric Monte's not going to admit it's a spinoff: He and Mike Evans created the show prior to the decision to use it as a vehicle for Esther Rolle's Florida character. His ego probably didn't like the fact that it became a spinoff.

Let's face it, the script was just floating around, not getting produced until Norman Lear bought it and decided to spin off Florida from Maude.

Now, maybe the fifth season qualifies as not being a spinoff since Esther Rolle was MIA that year. :D :D :D :D :D :D

That still makes no sense, so you have this script just sitting around, episodes already written and you can just grab a character from any tv show and say it's a spinoff? It was clear that from the first ep of GT, it was not a spinoff when Florida listed all james jobs in the past year and FIREMAN was not one of them.

Ireneparalegal

08-26-2005, 05:00 PM

That still makes no sense, so you have this script just sitting around, episodes already written and you can just grab a character from any tv show and say it's a spinoff? It was clear that from the first ep of GT, it was not a spinoff when Florida listed all james jobs in the past year and FIREMAN was not one of them.
I truly see your point and perspective on this matter Soloman. The actors may be the same but their origin is not, therefore, not a spin-off. But can u understand our point. If James was a fireman, then the family couldn't be in the ghetto, he would have a well-established job, there would be $$$ and they couldn't write around that scenario. I could also see the fact that Norman Lear didn't want a father to begin with. So, if that had been the case and Norman got his way, then of course it wouldn't be a spin-off. UNLESS, they wrote that Florida's fireman husband died suddenly, leaving the family fatherless, they didn't have $$$$ now that HENRY was dead and therefore they ended up living in the projects. I could see your point, can u understand ours?

TVFactFan

08-26-2005, 08:58 PM

I truly see your point and perspective on this matter Soloman. The actors may be the same but their origin is not, therefore, not a spin-off. But can u understand our point. If James was a fireman, then the family couldn't be in the ghetto, he would have a well-established job, there would be $$$ and they couldn't write around that scenario. I could also see the fact that Norman Lear didn't want a father to begin with. So, if that had been the case and Norman got his way, then of course it wouldn't be a spin-off. UNLESS, they wrote that Florida's fireman husband died suddenly, leaving the family fatherless, they didn't have $$$$ now that HENRY was dead and therefore they ended up living in the projects. I could see your point, can u understand ours?

The only thing I understand is Good Times is not connected to Maude's reality-lol.

ThomasE

08-26-2005, 09:49 PM

Helps me out enough to say, I won this spinoff debate?-lol

Nope! LOL. There is still a tie between both shows. LOL! Nice try, though.

Brian Damage

08-26-2005, 10:51 PM

DAMN DAMN DAMN!!!

Florida Evans

Why name a character exactly like the one played on Maude, especially if it is the same actor?!?

Explain that Solomon and I will surrender.

GeorgeWBushGOP

08-27-2005, 09:29 AM

TVFactFan

08-27-2005, 10:56 AM

ThomasE

08-27-2005, 10:57 AM

Writers can make changes if they wish. People get too caught up in the fact that a spinoff has to be concise and they don't have to be. Knots Landing was created before Dallas and it is still a spinoff. Empty Nest was not a consistent spinoff from the Golden Girls either but it is a spinoff anyway. The more I read these posts, the more I am convinced that it is a spinoff. Now more than ever! Solomon, that is only three people versus the hundreds of people that say otherwise. Wouldn't it be cool if this debate made it to TV Land confidiential LOL? We could all be on TV!

GeorgeWBushGOP

08-27-2005, 11:25 AM

I agree with you that not all spinoffs are concise.

However there are waaaaaaaaaay too many inconsistancies.

and the only consistancy to me is Florida the exmaid. after that it makes no sense.

In other words. THe inconsistancies outweigh any possible consistancy by the widest margin.

Even Knots landing had J.R., Christine, and Bobby appear on it with Gary going over to Dallas for visits now and then.

Maude finley or even NYC was never ever once mentioned on Good Times. Not a single nugget.

Brian Damage

08-27-2005, 11:34 AM

I think everybody is missing the point, you can have all the inconsistencies you want. If one character is spun onto another show, then it is a spinoff, regardless of inconsistencies. It becomes a fractured spinoff, but a spinoff none the less.

ThomasE

08-27-2005, 11:39 AM

GeorgeWBushGOP

08-27-2005, 11:40 AM

Yeah but if that were the case you would have to believe that the Florida on the Maude show. was the same Florida on Good Times.

And that is the only consistancy and even that is not a good one.

ThomasE

08-27-2005, 11:44 AM

TVFactFan

08-27-2005, 11:47 AM

I think the problem with this thing is, that everyone is really going deep with this but in actuallity, you have two characters that were taken from one show and spun into another. The Evans couple was spun off into another world. That is really clear.

It was ONE character, not Two. And She was not SPUN off, she was written OFF Maude and it looks like someone GOOF and gave her character on Good Times the wrong name.

Brian Damage

08-27-2005, 11:48 AM

I think the problem with this thing is, that everyone is really going deep with this but in actuallity, you have two characters that were taken from one show and spun into another. The Evans couple was spun off into another world. That is really clear.

exactly, it doesn't matter what is around the characters, what matters is that it is the characters.

Brian Damage

08-27-2005, 11:49 AM

It was ONE character, not Two. And She was not SPUN off, she was written OFF Maude and it looks like someone GOOF and gave her character on Good Times the wrong name.

That wasn't a goof Solomon. Professional writers and producers don't goof about something as obvious as that. It was intentional.

GeorgeWBushGOP

08-27-2005, 11:50 AM

Problem is I am not convinced they are the same character. I realize she left the show to do her own series. They just happen to have the same name.

To me they are clearly different characters.

TVFactFan

08-27-2005, 11:56 AM

Problem is I am not convinced they are the same character. I realize she left the show to do her own series. They just happen to have the same name.

To me they are clearly different characters.

The executive Producer, Alan Manings, said that it's Two different characters in 1974 which made him say-"It's not really a spinoff"

ThomasE

08-27-2005, 11:59 AM

If they wanted Florida and James/Henry to be different characters, trust me, they would have given them different names. BTW, SOLOMON, BOTH characters were the same, the history was changed. On Empty Nest, show's idea was concieved via Golden Girls. You have the neighbor Oliver who was played by David Leisure but when he was on the Golden Girls along with the husband and wife living in a house next door to the Golden Girls he was also renamed Charley on Empty Nest. On Empty Nest, the husband male actor was replaced with Richard Mulligan and Rita Moreno's wife character was axed and named changed to a deceased woman named Libby. The same house was used. This is one of the most inconsistentcies ever in the world of spin-offs but still a spinoff just like Good Times. Remember, its the idea!

Brian Damage

08-27-2005, 12:00 PM

They might be different, but the name is still the same. If they named her Martha istead of Florida I would see Solomon's point, but that isn't the case. Florida Evans had name recognition being on the show Maude. It was used to attract viewers to good times. It's like if Frasier Crane was based in Seattle and made no mention of Boston or Cheers. He's a radio host who use to practice psychology. That's not exactly what happened, but if it did. It would still be a spinoff because of Frasier.

Dr. Thong

08-27-2005, 12:04 PM

It does not matter. There are no rules that say that there has to be a connection or people that have to visit. We kinda get used to that but not all shows follow that rule. Billy was spun off from Head of the Class but there were NO references made to Filmore High and the characters from the parent series. Besides, David Jacobs did not want any more crossover plots between Knots and Dallas after 1985.

Yes, but the reason David Jacobs didn't want any more crossovers on Knots Landing was because of how Dallas decided to void Bobby Ewing's death by having an entire season be Pam's elaborate dream. They didn't feel the need to have to trash an entire season's worth of their stories just because of what the other show did, so the Ewings were no longer welcome in California and they were seldom referred to.

Some of the people who insist that this isn't a spinoff remind me of some people on the M*A*S*H board who feel it's too confusing that Harry Morgan had a guest role as a crazy general the season before he was cast as Colonel Potter. Someone suggested they should go back and write the episode off as a dream sequence because it bothered them that the same actor played two different roles on the same show. Apparently, they could not distinguish between the two.

It seems that some people are trying to make a distinction that Florida and "Henry" are two different characters from Florida and James. In the final analysis, this is not "reality," it's just a show. Whether it's a spinoff, a spin-on or a spinback, who cares??? Just enjoy it.

ThomasE

08-27-2005, 12:04 PM

GeorgeWBushGOP

08-27-2005, 12:42 PM

James"Thunder"Early

08-27-2005, 12:49 PM

It's not really logical that there would be two characters named Florida Evans. The name Florida is not a common name. Writers and Producers don't always care about inconsistancies and this one of those instances. If this was not a spinoff, then Florida would never have been written off Maude. Plus we have the same actress playing a character with the same name.

James"Thunder"Early

08-27-2005, 12:50 PM

GeorgeWBushGOP

08-27-2005, 01:08 PM

Brian Damage

08-27-2005, 01:26 PM

Maybe she was typecast at the moment. THey wanted to relate her to the other character. It just was not a spinoff.

this is fun.

That's like saying Michael Richards starred as Cosmo Kramer on a completely different show that wasn't a spinoff of Seinfeld. It doesn't add up.

Ireneparalegal

08-27-2005, 04:03 PM

After taking in the sound arguments on both sides. and painstaking deliberation I have come to the conclusion it is not a spinoff.

It is that Chicago/NY thing that gets me. FLorida left Maude because she was getting a better life in the BIg Apple.

And she winds up in some sh--shack ghetto apartment in Chicago with an often unemployed husband who is brilliant at spouting black social statistics.
BTW George, I heard today's statistics say that 3/4 of this board will end up on Soloman's side. And also the reason James doesn't get a good job is because there are approximately 45% of college athletes (22% who play football) and of those 3% hurt their knees and they have no education. So of those 3%, 2% end up driving cabs, washing cars and loading produce trucks. The remaining 1% end up dealing drugs, using drugs and becoming alcoholics. So those 3% take up most of the jobs that 1/4 of the population of the ghetto would be doing if it weren't for those damn injured athletes!!!

Ireneparalegal

08-27-2005, 04:06 PM

That wasn't a goof Solomon. Professional writers and producers don't goof about something as obvious as that. It was intentional.
They forgot all about POOR CARL... :(

robyrob

08-27-2005, 04:22 PM

this thread is a spinoff...

Mr. Television

08-27-2005, 04:26 PM

this thread is a spinoff...
:lol:

Brian Damage

08-27-2005, 04:26 PM

this thread is a spinoff...

No it's not, it is a CONTINUATION.

Ireneparalegal

08-27-2005, 04:30 PM

no it's not IT'S A CROSS-OVER!!!!!!

Brian Damage

08-27-2005, 04:32 PM

no it's not IT'S A CROSS-OVER!!!!!!

:lol:

Trishalla

08-29-2005, 01:53 PM

Of course Eric Monte's not going to admit it's a spinoff: He and Mike Evans created the show prior to the decision to use it as a vehicle for Esther Rolle's Florida character. His ego probably didn't like the fact that it became a spinoff.

Let's face it, the script was just floating around, not getting produced until Norman Lear bought it and decided to spin off Florida from Maude.

Now, maybe the fifth season qualifies as not being a spinoff since Esther Rolle was MIA that year. :D :D :D :D :D :D

the fact still remains its not a spin eric monte and mike evans created the show and EM said it in a interview online.

so leave it alone

I could understand it they were using the same excact charactors but they did not not

Florida the maid on Maude was not a vehicle for Ester Rolle on Good Times

John Amos and Ester Rolle didn't need anything like that because they were having a good fruitful careers already

So no
No spin off
Sorry

Trishalla

08-29-2005, 01:56 PM

Ok so far I have GeorgeWBushGOP, Irene, and Trishilla on my side. Anyone else? Brian Damage it's not looking good for you buddy-lol I'm gaining more and more support.

Trishilla

OMG

its

Trishalla

Dr. Thong

08-29-2005, 02:10 PM

John Amos and Esther Rolle didn't need anything like that because they were having a good fruitful careers already

Esther Rolle was a supporting character on Maude and John Amos was a recurring character. I would hardly say that's fruitful. Now, getting their own show, spinoff, vehicle or whatever you'd like to call it is most definitely a step up, career-wise.

James"Thunder"Early

08-29-2005, 02:17 PM

Dr. Thong

08-29-2005, 05:14 PM

This is really getting ridiculous all the facts point to a spinoff and it's always identified as a spinoff. Some people might want to believe it is not a spinoff, but it is regardless of what they say.

I think you put it in a nutshell and it ought to be the last word on this, but we all know the odds of that happening... :D

Trishalla

08-29-2005, 05:40 PM

Esther Rolle was a supporting character on Maude and John Amos was a recurring character. I would hardly say that's fruitful. Now, getting their own show, spinoff, vehicle or whatever you'd like to call it is most definitely a step up, career-wise.

Ester And John were guest staring in shows and had ther own work going on so I would say yes.

But any way you can say what you want on this board
about the spin off which would exclude "Good Times" because if it truly was, the Show would have been about Florida being a maid in New York with a Husband named Henry and three kids and it would not have been called "Good Times"

Definition of a Spin off:
Taking the same charactor, same situation, and puting into its own show based on the excact same charactor and that charactor's situation in the show which is spinning it off

Let me break it down for you

If Maude is Spinning off "Good Times"

How is it that Florida is living in New York, working as a maid, with a husband who is fireman named Henry, and three kids.

and how is it that Florida ends up in Chicago, in the projects with a husband named james, with three kids.

The change in Florida's living situation when did it happen.

Before she was living in Chicago

Ok if she was living in New York First and not Chicago, that would mean that the history of Charactor Florida, on "Good Times" would be on her second marriage and would have three kids that she never metioned, Once she married James when she came to chicago.

The type of person that "Florida" was in "Good Times" would never do anything like that, because it would be too out of character.

And if she was in Chicago First, and then moves to New York to work for "Maude"

How is it that Florida becomes married again and has three more kids, Because after James is Killed off in "Good Times", the next person that Florida gets married to is Carl.

(Carl who marries Florida at the end of season four of "Good Times" and then Ester Rolle leaves the series for one season)

So "Carl" All of sudden his health gets better, he gets a job as a Fireman, and changes his name to Henry. And then they Move to New York were Florida gets a Job as a maid. and then both of them who are already old have three more kids or adopt.

And if that was the Case it would be "Good Times" spinning off Maude

To me its not the same character being in the same situation in the show in which it is spinning off from

TVFactFan

08-29-2005, 06:03 PM

Ester And John were guest staring in shows and had ther own work going on so I would say yes.

But any way you can say what you want on this board
about the spin off which would exclude "Good Times" because if it truly was, the Show would have been about Florida being a maid in New York with a Husband named Henry and three kids and it would not have been called "Good Times"

Definition of a Spin off:
Taking the same charactor, same situation, and puting into its own show based on the excact same charactor and that charactor's situation in the show which is spinning it off

Let me break it down for you

If Maude is Spinning off "Good Times"

How is it that Florida is living in New York, working as a maid, with a husband who is fireman named Henry, and three kids.

and how is it that Florida ends up in Chicago, in the projects with a husband named james, with three kids.

The change in Florida's living situation when did it happen.

Before she was living in Chicago

Ok if she was living in New York First and not Chicago, that would mean that the history of Charactor Florida, on "Good Times" would be on her second marriage and would have three kids that she never metioned, Once she married James when she came to chicago.

The type of person that "Florida" was in "Good Times" would never do anything like that, because it would be too out of character.

And if she was in Chicago First, and then moves to New York to work for "Maude"

How is it that Florida becomes married again and has three more kids, Because after James is Killed off in "Good Times", the next person that Florida gets married to is Carl.

(Carl who marries Florida at the end of season four of "Good Times" and then Ester Rolle leaves the series for one season)

So "Carl" All of sudden his health gets better, he gets a job as a Fireman, and changes his name to Henry. And then they Move to New York were Florida gets a Job as a maid. and then both of them who are already old have three more kids or adopt.

And if that was the Case it would be "Good Times" spinning off Maude

To me its not the same character being in the same situation in the show in which it is spinning off from

THANK YOU TRishalla, i never thought of that. How could Florida Evans be spinned off if she was only Guest starring. Another Good point-LOL She and John Amos were Ocassional Guests who were WRITTEN OFF mAude, not Spinned Off, so they could star in a New Comedy, not Connected to Maude, called GOOD TIMES

Brian Damage

08-29-2005, 08:18 PM

Remember this is a tv show we are talking about here not real life. Characters and places can change without explanation. It does not have to be exact to be considered a spinoff. All it needs is one character, which it has in Florida Evans. Everything you say is moot because of that one thing. They could have made Florida an astronaut that went on wacky space adventures if they wanted to. It would still be a spinoff because of FLORIDA EVANS.

The problem with the two of you (Trishalla and Solomon) is you are trying to be too logical about this. Why is Henry named James, why are they living in Chicago... None of that matters if you have ONE character from one show and put her on another. That is what a spinoff is. A spinoff does not require everything to be exact and match up with the previous show. Eric Monte and Allan Mannings don't feel it is a spinoff because it was created before Maude. That's understandable because they want their show to stand on it's own merits. The fact is, if they wanted it seperate from Maude and not a spinoff, they should've renamed Florida. They didn't. Despite Monte and Mannigs "claiming" it is "Not really" a spinoff, EVERY single professional tv expert says otherwise. Why is that? The creator says it wasn't meant to be a spinoff, so why not listen to them.

The answer is very simple...Florida Evans. The End

ThomasE

08-30-2005, 12:09 AM

Oh, Brian I wish it were! LOL. I see that. You see that. Others see that. How I wish others would as well. To be honest, they are entitled to their opinions, but from what I see I am not convinced that the writers and producers goofed anything up. They knew what they were doing when Florida left Maude to be on Good Times with the same name.

Solomon, I do applaud your efforts in speaking up but I'm just not convinced. If you believe this wholeheartedly, you have every right to.

Ireneparalegal

08-30-2005, 12:15 AM

PLEASE LORD MAKE IT STOP!!!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!!!! I've had it. I wish to God I never started this thread. :livid: :bash: :angryfire :barf: :cuss: :crybaby:

ThomasE

08-30-2005, 12:24 AM

PLEASE LORD MAKE IT STOP!!!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!!!! I've had it. I wish to God I never started this thread. :livid: :bash: :angryfire :barf: :cuss: :crybaby:

Heh Heh Heh!

I think we better agree to disagree. LOL.

Ireneparalegal

08-30-2005, 12:33 AM

Heh Heh Heh!

I think we better agree to disagree. LOL.
AGREE!!!!!! :lol:

ThomasE

08-30-2005, 12:36 AM

AGREE!!!!!! :lol:

Me acuerdo contigo tambien. :lol:

(I agree with you too. LOL)

Ireneparalegal

08-30-2005, 12:40 AM

Me acuerdo contigo tambien. :lol:

(I agree with you too. LOL)
Yo hablo espanol. I am bilingual. In a lot of ways!!!!! :lol:

Ireneparalegal

08-30-2005, 12:40 AM

no, it's not what you think!!!!!! LOL

ThomasE

08-30-2005, 12:49 AM

Yo creo que yo te entiendo. LOL. Goodnite to all......

Trishalla

08-30-2005, 02:34 PM

Brian Damage

08-30-2005, 07:05 PM

OMG every show that came from AITF is not a spin off

Yes, they are

James"Thunder"Early

08-30-2005, 07:11 PM

no its not the end

its not the same character and same situation

if it was I could say yes

But it is not

OMG every show that came from AITF is not a spin offYou can believe whatever you want, but a lot of us know that it's a spinoff.

TVFactFan

09-19-2005, 07:08 PM

That's a bad argument. That's like saying Mork & Mindy and Laverne & Shirley are not spin-offs of Happy Days. Afterall, Mork made one appearance as a guest star on Happy Days which led him to his own show. Same goes with Laverne and Shirley. And another thing, didn't the character of Maude make only just one guest appearance on All In The Family? If that's true and by using the logic of your argument, then Maude isn't a spin-off of All In The Family.

Both of are arguments are weak because the STAR(Fonzie)of the Parent Show Happy Days appeared in the Pilot of Mork and Mindy and in the pilot of Laverne and Shirley. No one from Maude appeared on Good Times. So what's your POINT?????????

Brian Damage

09-19-2005, 07:39 PM

Yet another bad argument. Mork, Laverne, and Shirley made guest appearances on THE PARENT SHOW before the Fonz made his guest appearances on THEIR shows. As a result of the three making guest appearances on HAPPY DAYS, they were giving their OWN shows. So regardless if the Fonz made those appearances, Mork and Mindy & Laverne and Shirley would still be spin-offs.

So are you implying that just because none of the characters from Maude made guest appearances on Good Times, then that makes Good Times automatically not a spin-off???? If I recall right, none of the characters from All In The Family made any guest appearances on the Jeffersons, thus, going by your logic [of this argument), then The Jeffersons isn't a spin-off of All In The Family.

Excellent points!

TVFactFan

09-19-2005, 07:51 PM

I will never compare these Spinoffs to Good Times because they were are CONNECTED to Their Parent Show

Jeffersons
Mork and Mindy
Laverne and Shirley

Good Times is ANOTHER Story-lol

Ireneparalegal

09-20-2005, 02:35 AM

r we still on this crap!!???? lmao!!

TVFactFan

09-20-2005, 09:18 AM

r we still on this crap!!???? lmao!!

A new member bumped up the post yesterday with a weak a$$ argument about Mork and Mindy-lol

Dr. Thong

09-20-2005, 12:30 PM

r we still on this crap!!???? lmao!!

Exactly. Why doesn't an administrator just shut this puppy down. It's clear we'll never evolve past an impass on this one.

SPIN OFF!!! SPIN OFF!! SPIN OFF!! SPIN OFF!!!

Just wanted to get my last licks on this one! :D

TVFactFan

09-20-2005, 01:18 PM

Exactly. Why doesn't an administrator just shut this puppy down. It's clear we'll never evolve past an impass on this one.

SPIN OFF!!! SPIN OFF!! SPIN OFF!! SPIN OFF!!!

Just wanted to get my last licks on this one! :D

Well if new members see this thread they may want to add their input

Good Times is Not a spinoff-lol

GeeBee

09-20-2005, 06:50 PM

Well if new members see this thread they may want to add their input

Good Times is Not a spinoff-lol

You have a right to be wrong.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-21-2005, 01:33 PM

You have a right to be wrong.

So do you :)

Ireneparalegal

09-21-2005, 01:39 PM

yeah true, new members may want to add their opinions, i didn't look right at the post, didn't realize they had bumped it up, even though it was my thread!!!- LOL

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-21-2005, 01:41 PM

I love the new tagline Irene!!

Ireneparalegal

09-21-2005, 01:47 PM

I love the new tagline Irene!!
Oh thank you, my daughter loves to wear crazy t-shirts with crazy sayings on them and I loved this one. actually there's another one of hers i like it says:

I hear voices in my head; some of them actually have good ideas! - LOL

GeeBee

09-21-2005, 01:59 PM

So do you :)

So does your namesake. :lol:

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-21-2005, 01:59 PM

I saw one recently that said "Rehab is for quitters"

Ireneparalegal

09-21-2005, 02:00 PM

I saw one recently that said "Rehab is for quitters"
ROTFLMAO!!!!! good one...funny!!

TVFactFan

09-21-2005, 04:33 PM

yeah true, new members may want to add their opinions, i didn't look right at the post, didn't realize they had bumped it up, even though it was my thread!!!- LOL

Irene I don;t remember but are you on my side in this debate? I think you are, maybe neutral. I don;t remember you being on Brain damage's side.

Living In a '70's Dream

09-21-2005, 04:45 PM

*SIGH* Since I am the moderator of this board..I think it is time for my two cents on this issue of debate; first of all, everyone has their right of an opinion regardless if others think that person is wrong...If Solomon thinks that Good Times was not a spin-off of Maude, hey, that his " Prerogative"..but in my opinion..and forgive me for being blunt...and this is my true feelings regarding if Good Times is actually a SPIN OFF ....WHO CARES :p ..The End!

Dr. Thong

09-21-2005, 06:10 PM

TVFactFan

09-21-2005, 06:48 PM

Living In a '70's Dream

09-21-2005, 09:39 PM

LOL-You are Wild Tara
:santa: ..I know ;)

Ireneparalegal

09-21-2005, 09:53 PM

:santa: ..I know ;)
And don't you ever change...Retro likes us crazy and wild women just the way we are!!!!!

Living In a '70's Dream

09-21-2005, 11:50 PM

And don't you ever change...Retro likes us crazy and wild women just the way we are!!!!!
:lol: Amen, us wild and crazy people need to stuck togetha!!!

I am actually not WILD or CRAZY just have a very dry sense of humor; so if others are EVER offended to what I had said, remember this post! ;)

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-22-2005, 08:23 AM

So does your namesake. :lol:

Actually George W. Bush was recently quoted that he felt "Good Times" is a spinoff.

This is one of the few talking points I disagree with him on.

So you are in agreement with him.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-22-2005, 08:24 AM

And don't you ever change...Retro likes us crazy and wild women just the way we are!!!!!

Is that you on my "Girls gone wild" DVD?

TVFactFan

09-22-2005, 09:42 AM

I was so surprised the article I mailed brian damage didn't win this debate for me. So I kind of gave up after that-lol

Brian Damage

09-22-2005, 10:26 AM

I was so surprised the article I mailed brian damage didn't win this debate for me. So I kind of gave up after that-lol

Like you, I analyzed the article and it had flaws in it. LOL

ThomasE

09-22-2005, 06:39 PM

Like you, I analyzed the article and it had flaws in it. LOL

OMG, Brian. I love how you put it "Like you, I analyzed the article". LOL. Anyway, I got the chance to read a link that Trishalla posted weeks ago. It was an interview with Eric Monte the creator of Good Times and I can see Trishalla and Solomon's point and why they don't think it is a spinoff.

Eric says that he created Good Times before Maude existed. Esther wanted to continue to remain the same on Good Times. I actually see where these two are coming from. This program "The Black Family" did not start off as a spinoff but it wound up falling under that category or another term would be "adopted into the family".

1)Mike Evans introduced Eric Monte to Mr. Lear.

2) Lear told Rolle she would be getting her own show

3) She wanted to be Florida Evans on Good Times as well.

4) There were some adjustments made to the show leaving a connection.

True that "Maude" did not become pregnant with "Good Times" but one character was taken from "Maude" and continued playing the character on the idea that was finally coming to light. This idea was changed from the working title "The Black Family" to "Good Times". Originally the show meant to stand on it's own but could be considered an "adoption" into the spinoff world It wasn't born from Maude but it got "intertwined" because of Norman Lear and Esther Rolle.

I can understand SOLOMON and Trishalla's and Ireneparalegal's P.O.V. and don't think they are crazy for voicing their views. Brian, like yourself, I was questioning that fact as well but when I weighed everything out, it still roots back to the fact that Good Times would not be what we see now if were not for Esther Rolle and John Amos and Ms. Rolle wanting to continue with the name on Good Times.

If it were not for Florda Evans on Maude, we would not have Florida Evans on Good Times. This show wound being a spinoff because it did lock with Maude by way of Esther Rolle. There was some type of adoption process. Good Times was able to stand on it own without the help of Maude but Esther Rolle and John Amos were the connectors between the shows so that spinoff residue still remains.

At this point, I really don't care anymore because I see that it is a spinoff overall. It did not start that way but wound up connecting into that category. I just don't us yelling at each other about this. It can get crazy on this board sometimes.

GeeBee

09-22-2005, 09:03 PM

Actually George W. Bush was recently quoted that he felt "Good Times" is a spinoff.

This is one of the few talking points I disagree with him on.

So you are in agreement with him.

You misunderstood. He said that his goal was to spin-off every African American family in America to live like the Evans family.

Ireneparalegal

09-22-2005, 09:04 PM

:lol: Amen, us wild and crazy people need to stuck togetha!!!

I am actually not WILD or CRAZY just have a very dry sense of humor; so if others are EVER offended to what I had said, remember this post! ;)
Here here!!!! :wave:

Ireneparalegal

09-22-2005, 09:05 PM

Is that you on my "Girls gone wild" DVD?
I don't make tapes. What I do only requires a very good memory!!!! Ha ha

Living In a '70's Dream

09-22-2005, 09:29 PM

I don't make tapes. What I do only requires a very good memory!!!! Ha ha
:lol:

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-23-2005, 12:25 AM

You misunderstood. He said that his goal was to spin-off every African American family in America to live like the Evans family.

I thought every family that lived like the Evans didn't have to pay any taxes?

This is for another board I think.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-23-2005, 12:26 AM

I don't make tapes. What I do only requires a very good memory!!!! Ha ha

WooHoo!!!

Ireneparalegal

09-23-2005, 12:27 AM

WooHoo!!!
LOL - so if you have Alzheimers.......

GeeBee

09-23-2005, 12:29 AM

I thought every family that lived like the Evans didn't have to pay any taxes?

This is for another board I think.

Can't pay what they don't have.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-23-2005, 12:32 AM

Ok so I understand you. These families were filthy rich before W took office. then they became the Evans family?

:rolleyes:

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-23-2005, 12:33 AM

LOL - so if you have Alzheimers.......

The symptoms for Alzheimers and Herpes are the same. So if your husband has the symptoms take him for a ride into the woods. And if he comes back..Don't have sex with him!!

Ireneparalegal

09-23-2005, 12:36 AM

The symptoms for Alzheimers and Herpes are the same. So if your husband has the symptoms take him for a ride into the woods. And if he comes back..Don't have sex with him!!
LMAO!!!!!! :lol:

TVFactFan

09-23-2005, 09:58 AM

Ireneparalegal

09-23-2005, 10:38 PM

Can we just put an end to this debate by saying BOTH sides have very strong arguments and it's really no right answer to this debate. What do you all say to that? If everyone agrees then the debate is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT THE F***???????? OMG...God still performs miracles. thank u Lord
:lol: :wave:

JeffRuss1972

09-23-2005, 10:59 PM

You misunderstood. He said that his goal was to spin-off every African American family in America to live like the Evans family.

:rolleyes:

GeeBee

09-23-2005, 11:54 PM

Ok so I understand you. These families were filthy rich before W took office. then they became the Evans family?

:rolleyes:

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That was one of the main messages of Good Times.

Ireneparalegal

09-24-2005, 10:56 PM

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That was one of the main messages of Good Times.
Actually it was "eat your oatmeal."

JeffRuss1972

09-25-2005, 11:04 AM

And also:

"Follow these statistics . . ."

"I read somewhere that . . ." :lol:

Brian Damage

09-25-2005, 03:16 PM

Can we just put an end to this debate by saying BOTH sides have very strong arguments and it's really no right answer to this debate. What do you all say to that? If everyone agrees then the debate is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!

It'll never really end Solomon. Yes, we both have strong arguments each way, but there will always be someone new who reads this stuff and will add their 2 cents.

Ireneparalegal

09-25-2005, 03:19 PM

And also:

"Follow these statistics . . ."

"I read somewhere that . . ." :lol:
LMAO!!!!

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-26-2005, 07:59 AM

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That was one of the main messages of Good Times.

If that were true it was a false message.

The message of "why bother?" the rich are only getting richer is absurd.

I thought it was a family that was proud. Worked their asses off. And got out of the ghetto. That is a good message.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-26-2005, 08:01 AM

It'll never really end Solomon. Yes, we both have strong arguments each way, but there will always be someone new who reads this stuff and will add their 2 cents.

No the debate must go on. No matter what. We must find the answer somehow.

It is one of those mysteries of life that ranks up there with the Bermuda Triangle, and "Why is there always room for Jello"?

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-26-2005, 08:06 AM

Actually it was "eat your oatmeal."

Too Funny.

I thought the message was "When all else fails..Instead of getting food stamps be proud because Ear Wax can be a source of fiber

GeeBee

09-26-2005, 06:16 PM

If that were true it was a false message.

The message of "why bother?" the rich are only getting richer is absurd.

I thought it was a family that was proud. Worked their asses off. And got out of the ghetto. That is a good message.

Getting out of the ghetto was just a last minute happy ending that they tacked on the season finale. James lived his whole life in poverty, Florida lived half of her life in it, and the kids' whole childhood was impoverished. The overall message was that the family spent years and years working hard, but were treated unfairly and got less than they deserved while the fat cats thrived. And rest assured that in real life, there are many honest, hard working poor families who NEVER get out of poverty.

ThomasE

09-26-2005, 09:24 PM

Can we just put an end to this debate by saying BOTH sides have very strong arguments and it's really no right answer to this debate. What do you all say to that? If everyone agrees then the debate is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!

ThomasE faints after reading this comment and wonders who put a gun to Retro's Head. :confused: I never thought I would hear this dude use those words, but I'kk go for that. :wave:

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-26-2005, 11:15 PM

Getting out of the ghetto was just a last minute happy ending that they tacked on the season finale. James lived his whole life in poverty, Florida lived half of her life in it, and the kids' whole childhood was impoverished. The overall message was that the family spent years and years working hard, but were treated unfairly and got less than they deserved while the fat cats thrived. And rest assured that in real life, there are many honest, hard working poor families who NEVER get out of poverty.

Totally false. But that is my opinion.

Seems to me if you spend your life in poverty you should be having children.

Unless you are physically or mentally disabled in this country poverty is a choice.

We live in a country where you can sell your unwashed underwear on ebay and somebody will buy it for crying out loud.

Do you really think the majority of families in the ghetto are hard working families? Or would you say the majority are welfare mothers with no husbands?

Remember the producers of this show didn't even want a father.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-26-2005, 11:16 PM

correction. People in poverty should NOT be having children.

If you love children you wouldn't be pumping them out unless you are sure you can take care of them.

GeeBee

09-26-2005, 11:27 PM

correction. People in poverty should NOT be having children.

If you love children you wouldn't be pumping them out unless you are sure you can take care of them.

If society loved children, they wouldn't let them be impoverished for a situation that was no fault of their own.

Ireneparalegal

09-26-2005, 11:29 PM

Too Funny.

I thought the message was "When all else fails..Instead of getting food stamps be proud because Ear Wax can be a source of fiber
Ewwwwwww, YUCK!!!!!!!! rotflmao!!!! :lol: :crazy: :happyface

GeeBee

09-26-2005, 11:30 PM

Seems to me if you spend your life in poverty you should be having children.

I'm glad you feel that way. Even people in poverty deserve to have a family. Well said.

craftman

09-26-2005, 11:32 PM

correction. People in poverty should NOT be having children.

If you love children you wouldn't be pumping them out unless you are sure you can take care of them.

Your comment reminds me of a Good Times episode, "The Baby". I wanna know what you thought of that episode, and if you agreed with Flo and them, or Loretta.

GeeBee

09-26-2005, 11:34 PM

correction. People in poverty should NOT be having children.

If you love children you wouldn't be pumping them out unless you are sure you can take care of them.

It's strange too. There's this talk about "pumping out" children. I've yet to see a woman who could "pump out" a child. Last I checked, it takes about nine months to give birth and it's a rather intense process. Maybe we should ask some of the women on here who have had children if it's a simple matter of "pumping them out." Interesting.

Ireneparalegal

09-26-2005, 11:38 PM

It's strange too. There's this talk about "pumping out" children. I've yet to see a woman who could "pump out" a child. Last I checked, it takes about nine months to give birth and it's a rather intense process. Maybe we should ask some of the women on here who have had children if it's a simple matter of "pumping them out." Interesting.
Well it took alot of PUMPING to make my kids...LOL

GeeBee

09-26-2005, 11:45 PM

Well it took alot of PUMPING to make my kids...LOL

:lol:

craftman

09-27-2005, 12:05 AM

Well it took alot of PUMPING to make my kids...LOL

Ooooh, Irene. :shocked :nonono:

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 12:23 AM

Ooooh, Irene. :shocked :nonono:
you two make me laugh... :lol:

Living In a '70's Dream

09-27-2005, 12:23 AM

Well it took alot of PUMPING to make my kids...LOL
:lol:

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 12:27 AM

Totally false. But that is my opinion.

Seems to me if you spend your life in poverty you should be having children.

Unless you are physically or mentally disabled in this country poverty is a choice.

We live in a country where you can sell your unwashed underwear on ebay and somebody will buy it for crying out loud.

Do you really think the majority of families in the ghetto are hard working families? Or would you say the majority are welfare mothers with no husbands?

Remember the producers of this show didn't even want a father.

Some have actually said that mothers who stay home with their children DO work hard. Silly thought, huh?

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 01:26 AM

Some have actually said that mothers who stay home with their children DO work hard. Silly thought, huh?
I never used to believe that. But now I know different. It's a non-stop job. With great benefits, the smile on my kids faces, being there for them, watching them grow.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 02:21 PM

Some have actually said that mothers who stay home with their children DO work hard. Silly thought, huh?

Who says they don't

Thjat is not the point.

Point being made is somehow you think it is the fatcats fault that the poor are poor.

I believe people make their own situations.

If you look at the Evans as a real family they most certainly had their shot out of the ghetto. Sometimes perfectly legally and they didnt want to compramise other things.

So it was their choice to stay poor.

If you are poor to begin with you shouldn't be PUMPING out the babies.

Make something of yourself first. Then have the family.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 02:24 PM

Well it took alot of PUMPING to make my kids...LOL

I am gong to call you the tire lady from now on!!

But actually you were getting plowed. and nine months later you were pumping.

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 02:29 PM

I am gong to call you the tire lady from now on!!

But actually you were getting plowed. and nine months later you were pumping.
Actually, HE was getting plowed...I am in charge!!! Nine months later, kid yanked out (C-section) LOL

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 02:39 PM

Who says they don't

Thjat is not the point.

Point being made is somehow you think it is the fatcats fault that the poor are poor.

I believe people make their own situations.

If you look at the Evans as a real family they most certainly had their shot out of the ghetto. Sometimes perfectly legally and they didnt want to compramise other things.

So it was their choice to stay poor.

If you are poor to begin with you shouldn't be PUMPING out the babies.

Make something of yourself first. Then have the family.

I take it you're for abortion and birth control then.

It's everyone's fault that the poor are poor. Our system could do a lot more to help on several levels. No matter what you may believe about the wrong choices the adults may have made in having the children, it's not the children's fault and society has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. It seems like lately there has been more recognition of this, unfortunately many people had to die in a natural disaster before the current powers that be would even acknowledge that there was a problem.

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 02:43 PM

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 02:48 PM

Yeah, I agree this spin-off debate thing is really crazy. I hear what you guys are saying, let's agree to disagree. You guys are funny. I know one believes it's a spin-off....wait, whoa, that's not what you guys are talking abt. What the hell happened to the topic????? LMAO!!!!

LOL! I know. I guess this really belongs on the politics board. On the other hand, the discussion is very much related to what Good Times was trying to say.
If there was ever a bleeding heart liberal show, Good Times was it. Anyone who would deny that has really missed the point of it, but then again, people seemed to have missed the point about a lot of Norman Lear's shows.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 02:50 PM

I take it you're for abortion and birth control then.

It's everyone's fault that the poor are poor. Our system could do a lot more to help on several levels. No matter what you may believe about the wrong choices the adults may have made in having the children, it's not the children's fault and society has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. It seems like lately there has been more recognition of this, unfortunately many people had to die in a natural disaster before the current powers that be would even acknowledge that there was a problem.

The abortion issue is a total other forum.

So is the natural disaster.

As for the rest you are totally twisting what I am saying to some sort of RightWing cult mantra which is nonsense.

I never said anything about NOT helping people who are poor out. Nor have I ever REMOTELY suggested that kids of these poor people shouldn't be helped out either.

HOWEVER. That is the reason they are poor. Poor choices make poor people. Period. If you rely on the government your whole life you are going to stay poor. THey are entitled to everything I am entitled to. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But if they made poor choices in their life that is not my fault.

I pay my taxes. ANd there are programs for the poor. I am not about to suggest we should give them all condos and lobster dinners.

The poor in this country are better off than just about every european country's middle class.

If you are going to discuss things with me. Please don't use words that I don't use from now on. Thank you.

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 02:53 PM

The abortion issue is a total other forum.

So is the natural disaster.

As for the rest you are totally twisting what I am saying to some sort of RightWing cult mantra which is nonsense.

I never said anything about NOT helping people who are poor out. Nor have I ever REMOTELY suggested that kids of these poor people shouldn't be helped out either.

HOWEVER. That is the reason they are poor. Poor choices make poor people. Period. If you rely on the government your whole life you are going to stay poor. THey are entitled to everything I am entitled to. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But if they made poor choices in their life that is not my fault.

I pay my taxes. ANd there are programs for the poor. I am not about to suggest we should give them all condos and lobster dinners.

The poor in this country are better off than just about every european country's middle class.

If you are going to discuss things with me. Please don't use words that I don't use from now on. Thank you.

I think your conservative and compassionate sides are at war with each other. LOL

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 02:54 PM

LOL! I know. I guess this really belongs on the politics board. On the other hand, the discussion is very much related to what Good Times was trying to say.
If there was ever a bleeding heart liberal show, Good Times was it. Anyone who would deny that has really missed the point of it, but then again, people seemed to have missed the point about a lot of Norman Lear's shows.

Every show dealing with social issues has been a bleeding heart show. Usually with hypocritical messages that never materialize in real life.

Which is why it is all fictitious.

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 02:55 PM

Every show dealing with social issues has been a bleeding heart show. Usually with hypocritical messages that never materialize in real life.

Which is why it is all fictitious.

And yet you're a fan of them. Hmmm...

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 02:56 PM

I think your conservative and compassionate sides are at war with each other. LOL

Well I am very secure with myself.

and there are many compassionate conservatives.

And there are many evil liberals.

Political affiliation doesn't make you good or evil in any way.

Only your heart does.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 03:00 PM

And yet you're a fan of them. Hmmm...

Not all of them. Good Times. AITF, Maude. yes. Because they explored the failed idiocy in both platforms regardless of if Lear was a Democrat.

But phoney yuppie shows like Mash, Family Ties, Growing Pains were waaaaaaaay too preachy. and they wound up not being funny to me.

Norman Lear's shows never forgot the comedy.

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 03:07 PM

Well I am very secure with myself.

and there are many compassionate conservatives.

And there are many evil liberals.

Political affiliation doesn't make you good or evil in any way.

Only your heart does.

It's funny. I really do think you're sincere about that, but I don't think you realize how mean spirited so many of your comments sound.

The poor should be childless; women are just machines who pump out babies...

Yes, I'm paraphrasing what you said, not directly quoting you, but that seems to be the general message. Again, I don't think you mean for it to come out that way, which I guess is better than those who just don't care.

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 03:09 PM

Not all of them. Good Times. AITF, Maude. yes. Because they explored the failed idiocy in both platforms regardless of if Lear was a Democrat.

Like I said, many people missed the point.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 04:02 PM

It's funny. I really do think you're sincere about that, but I don't think you realize how mean spirited so many of your comments sound.

The poor should be childless; women are just machines who pump out babies...

Yes, I'm paraphrasing what you said, not directly quoting you, but that seems to be the general message. Again, I don't think you mean for it to come out that way, which I guess is better than those who just don't care.

Then we are even because I took some of your comments as mean spirited and myopic.

You can only express yourself through the mercy of cyberspace and not your own expressions.

I know I have the handle ect. However I firmly believe that anybody who thinks one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong is a fool.

I am most certainly conservative. But hardly myopic.

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 06:28 PM

Then we are even because I took some of your comments as mean spirited and myopic.

You can only express yourself through the mercy of cyberspace and not your own expressions.

I know I have the handle ect. However I firmly believe that anybody who thinks one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong is a fool.

I am most certainly conservative. But hardly myopic.

I don't know, some might say that a statement like "Unless you are physically or mentally disabled in this country poverty is a choice." is very myopic and gives a short sighted oversimplification of a very complex problem.

One of the biggest myths on both sides is this either/or mentally about individual responsibility vs. societal responsibility. The truth is that it's BOTH; the system is unfair and doesn't work for many, but everyone still has a responsibility to behave appropriately under a given circumstance. (That's why I don't believe poor people have a right to keep a bag of money that they find from a grocery store.)

The mercy of cyberspace is a luxury we all share on here, but I've never been shy about my opinions in college, work, or other settings, real or cyber. Some of my comments may sound mean spirited, but I try to limit them to self-defense against people who can fight back, not as a bully pulpit against impoverished children and families. But, I digress. :wave:

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 06:49 PM

so basically is Good Times a spin-off or not??? :lol: :crazy: :happyface :wave:

BTW, both of you have smilie faces for an avatar, your names begin with the letter "B" hmmmm....what else

Dr. Thong

09-27-2005, 06:58 PM

I'm glad you feel that way. Even people in poverty deserve to have a family. Well said.

Don't forget, Dubya also said "We have to put food on our families."

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 06:59 PM

Don't forget, Dubya also said "We have to put food on our families."
"food on our families" LMAO!!! :lol: :crazy:

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 07:05 PM

:lol:

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 07:13 PM

i swear, u guys really make my day...i have laryngitis, u should hear how I am NOT laughing right now...I sound like my damn pug when he barks, alot of air and hardly a bark!!!

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 09:44 PM

I don't know, some might say that a statement like "Unless you are physically or mentally disabled in this country poverty is a choice." is very myopic and gives a short sighted oversimplification of a very complex problem.

One of the biggest myths on both sides is this either/or mentally about individual responsibility vs. societal responsibility. The truth is that it's BOTH; the system is unfair and doesn't work for many, but everyone still has a responsibility to behave appropriately under a given circumstance. (That's why I don't believe poor people have a right to keep a bag of money that they find from a grocery store.)

The mercy of cyberspace is a luxury we all share on here, but I've never been shy about my opinions in college, work, or other settings, real or cyber. Some of my comments may sound mean spirited, but I try to limit them to self-defense against people who can fight back, not as a bully pulpit against impoverished children and families. But, I digress. :wave:

Some might say? Who? You? Nothing myopic about it. If your willing to work hard and have half a brain in this country it is impossible to fail.

The system works for all. Everyone is entitled to pursuit of life liberty and happiness. I won't say that it is an even playing field but everyone is given the opportunity. I came from humble beginnings myself. Chose to work hard ect.

And finally you can comment all you want. I am never shy about my comments either. However some forums are more appropriate than others. I don't feel compelled dragging others into my social beliefs who choose to talk about a tv show.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 09:49 PM

Don't forget, Dubya also said "We have to put food on our families."

Maybe George and Laura have a food fetish.

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 09:55 PM

Some might say? Who? You? Nothing myopic about it. If your willing to work hard and have half a brain in this country it is impossible to fail.

The system works for all. Everyone is entitled to pursuit of life liberty and happiness. I won't say that it is an even playing field but everyone is given the opportunity. I came from humble beginnings myself. Chose to work hard ect.

And finally you can comment all you want. I am never shy about my comments either. However some forums are more appropriate than others. I don't feel compelled dragging others into my social beliefs who choose to talk about a tv show.

Myopia mania.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 09:56 PM

"Originally Posted by GeeBee
I'm glad you feel that way. Even people in poverty deserve to have a family. Well said."

That is all well and good. But then they choose the struggle. and the kids are forced to struggle as a child. and live a life in a bad neighborhood.

I think it is a better idea to establish yourself first. Get a Job. work hard. Then there is plenty of time for a family.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 09:58 PM

Myopia mania.

Take a pill for it then.

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 10:00 PM

My head hurts!!! :crazy: :( (Irene is crying) :lol:

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 10:00 PM

Take a pill for it then.

Projection city.

Brian Damage

09-27-2005, 10:02 PM

What the hell does this have to do with a dang spinoff?

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 10:02 PM

OK lets keep it going 100 more posts and this thread will make it 300!!!! whoopee!!!! :cool: :wave:

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 10:03 PM

What the hell does this have to do with a dang spinoff?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :crazy: I am choking over here Brian!!!

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 10:03 PM

okay 98 more posts to go...come on, don't stop now!!!!!

this is better than a soap opera...i can't wait for the next post!!! :lol: :happyface

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 10:05 PM

What the hell does this have to do with a dang spinoff?

Nothing I suppose.

Anyway in my humble opinion Good Times is not a spinoff of Maude.

Now what?

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 10:06 PM

Nothing I suppose.

Anyway in my humble opinion Good Times is not a spinoff of Maude.

Now what?
97

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 10:10 PM

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 10:12 PM

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 10:14 PM

Not to change the subject again.

Irene I saw a post of yours talking about Screen Test with Don Adams.

I have a copy of the pilot of that show here somewhere.

I have no use for it and can sell it to you for the low low price of 0.00
seriously???? or r u being a "George Bush"? LOL

okay, my posts number was incorrect...let me correct it now...we are now at 229, therefore, 71 more posts to go!!!!!

PM me if u r serious!

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 10:25 PM

None of this really has anything to do with the spin-off issue, but I do think it's indirectly related to the Good Times series.

The producers probably never dreamed that all these years later, discussions about this show would emphasize how far people are in denial and have their heads in the sand. From people who say that parents never deliberately burn their children with irons to those who say that the system is guaranteed to work for everyone who is a hard worker....Sheesh.... I'm almost jealous of such naive bliss. :lol:

Now you are just looking for an angry reaction.

Sorry Pal. You are a hopeless reactionary.

It is obvious you are trying now to bait people into a piss fight.

It is a shame. You can't get people to agree with you so you have to call others opinions naive.

Or excuse me. "Suggest"

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-27-2005, 10:28 PM

seriously???? or r u being a "George Bush"? LOL

okay, my posts number was incorrect...let me correct it now...we are now at 229, therefore, 71 more posts to go!!!!!

PM me if u r serious!

I don't get that. Are you suggesting W wouldn't give you a dvd?

You can PM a place to mail it to and I can get it out. I will probably watch it real quick first.

Ireneparalegal

09-27-2005, 10:31 PM

okey dokey...here I gooooo.............

GeeBee

09-27-2005, 10:43 PM

I don't get that. Are you suggesting W wouldn't give you a dvd?

You can PM a place to mail it to and I can get it out. I will probably watch it real quick first.

I don't think it was particularly the dvd thing; it was probably the issue of honesty. LOL

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-28-2005, 08:26 AM

W isn't honest?

Ireneparalegal

09-28-2005, 02:41 PM

okay u two, we're almost at 300 posts!!!!

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-28-2005, 04:20 PM

W isn't honest?

That's your opinion.

The true dishonest people are the ones who look for smoking guns which are not there. Then say IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN THAT WAY!!

America rejected the Bush haters. Rejected them soundly.

How many is that Irene?

I want to know about the equasion of W and Good Times!!!

Dr. Thong

09-28-2005, 05:14 PM

That's your opinion.

The true dishonest people are the ones who look for smoking guns which are not there. Then say IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN THAT WAY!!

America rejected the Bush haters. Rejected them soundly.

How many is that Irene?

I want to know about the equasion of W and Good Times!!!

"Rejected them soundly?" The election was fairly close - hardly a landslide. Hey, at least he actually won this time, I'll give him that. :rolleyes:

Ireneparalegal

09-28-2005, 05:27 PM

"Rejected them soundly?" The election was fairly close - hardly a landslide. Hey, at least he actually won this time, I'll give him that. :rolleyes:
You know, I wanted Gore to win, but I will admit, and it's not even an admission, it's a fact that George is our President. We either like him or don't. What I wish for can't be changed. I respect honorably any man or woman who wishes to run for the office of presidency. It is a job I sure as heck wouldn't want. No way. I couldn't please everyone, I would have to make choices I may not agree with, I would have to deal with the possibility of war. I will be honest, after 9/11 happened, I so bad wanted our President to declare war. I wanted all terrorists to know that we will not bow to their acts of murder. Bottom line, we can argue on and on abt the good and the bad of Mr. Bush, but I for one am glad it's him in the office and not me, not someone who doesn't have the foggiest idea is going on, etc. I wouldn't know how to have handled 9/11, Katrina, Rita, all the devastation that has been bestowed upon us. Maybe there is something we don't understand, someday, down the road, we will look back and say "What a great man he was for doing and handling the situations the way he did." Maybe.

Ireneparalegal

09-28-2005, 05:29 PM

62 more to go!!!!

GeeBee

09-28-2005, 06:37 PM

W isn't honest?

Honest, he's not honest. :)

GeeBee

09-28-2005, 06:43 PM

I will be honest, after 9/11 happened, I so bad wanted our President to declare war. I wanted all terrorists to know that we will not bow to their acts of murder.

Well, we still haven't had retribution for 9-11.

Osama's been forgotten.

Dr. Thong

09-28-2005, 07:10 PM

Well, we still haven't had retribution for 9-11.

Osama's been forgotten.

No terrorist left behind??

Personally, I hope the first U.S. soldier who gets Osama in their sights shoots first. I don't want him sitting in a U.S. jail cell watching cable TV.

There was an article a year back about Saddam Hussein. It said how he tended to a garden in jail, enjoyed cookies and read the koran. If you didn't know he was a monomanical, homicidal dictator, you'd think he was some kindly grandfatherly type.

Ireneparalegal

09-28-2005, 07:19 PM

No terrorist left behind??

Personally, I hope the first U.S. soldier who gets Osama in their sights shoots first. I don't want him sitting in a U.S. jail cell watching cable TV.

There was an article a year back about Saddam Hussein. It said how he tended to a garden in jail, enjoyed cookies and read the koran. If you didn't know he was a monomanical, homicidal dictator, you'd think he was some kindly grandfatherly type.
not only that he is enjoying his Doritos (with water sprinkled on them), he is doling out advice to the soldiers who guard him, abt WOMEN no less. There are some people in this world I wish would just DIE!!!! Osama and Hussein are just two of them. They need to rot in hell. If Osama can spew out garbage abt being martyrs and dying for your beliefs, and all that garbage, then he should be the first to kill himself.

okay, where are we now, 59 posts????

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-28-2005, 07:51 PM

You know, I wanted Gore to win, but I will admit, and it's not even an admission, it's a fact that George is our President. We either like him or don't. What I wish for can't be changed. I respect honorably any man or woman who wishes to run for the office of presidency. It is a job I sure as heck wouldn't want. No way. I couldn't please everyone, I would have to make choices I may not agree with, I would have to deal with the possibility of war. I will be honest, after 9/11 happened, I so bad wanted our President to declare war. I wanted all terrorists to know that we will not bow to their acts of murder. Bottom line, we can argue on and on abt the good and the bad of Mr. Bush, but I for one am glad it's him in the office and not me, not someone who doesn't have the foggiest idea is going on, etc. I wouldn't know how to have handled 9/11, Katrina, Rita, all the devastation that has been bestowed upon us. Maybe there is something we don't understand, someday, down the road, we will look back and say "What a great man he was for doing and handling the situations the way he did." Maybe.

Look at President Clinton when he left office. He looked like he aged thirty years in eight.

W is heading the same way.

America is full of monday morning QBs.

I mean John Kerry had your sentiments on 9/11 until he changed his mind.

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-28-2005, 07:53 PM

Well, we still haven't had retribution for 9-11.

Osama's been forgotten.

Forgotten? Or is the media focus off of him?

Last I checked we still have troops in Afghanastan.

So you condone invading afghanastan?

GeorgeWBushGOP

09-28-2005, 08:02 PM

"Rejected them soundly?" The election was fairly close - hardly a landslide. Hey, at least he actually won this time, I'll give him that. :rolleyes:

Six million votes is a thrashing

Especially when you had Michael Moore and his fakumentary.

You had "Vote or Die"

You had Mickey Soros.

You had Moveon.org.

You had Dan Blather and memogate.

You had Osama endorsing Kerry also.

Face it. Ketchup Kerry couldn't cut the mustard.

Americans showed force by not buying into the total smear campaign. The biggest smear campaign in the history of american politics.

The fact which Gore Lost by LAW shows what people thought of the previous administration. It shouldn't have even been close considering President Clinton's popularity. republicans get out to vote. Dems stay home and play nintendo hoping their Ilk will take care of it for them.

And Good Times was no spinoff.

Ireneparalegal

09-28-2005, 08:04 PM

Six million votes is a thrashing

Especially when you had Michael Moore and his fakumentary.

You had "Vote or Die"

You had Mickey Soros.

You had Moveon.org.

You had Dan Blather and memogate.

You had Osama endorsing Kerry also.

Face it. Ketchup Kerry couldn't cut the mustard.

Americans showed force by not buying into the total smear campaign. The biggest smear campaign in the history of american politics.

The fact which Gore Lost by LAW shows what people thought of the previous administration. It shouldn't have even been close considering President Clinton's popularity. republicans get out to vote. Dems stay home and play nintendo hoping their Ilk will take care of it for them.

And Good Times was no spinoff.

Do you think James Evan's would have voted for Bush?
(Irene trying to keep with the theme of the thread! LMAO!!!!!)

GeeBee

09-28-2005, 08:10 PM

Forgotten? Or is the media focus off of him?

Last I checked we still have troops in Afghanastan.

So you condone invading afghanastan?

No, he was forgotten. The man who ordered 9-11 is still running free. Even if he was captured tomorrow, the amount of time it's taken to capture him and the emphasis on Iraq is absurd.

Yes, I do believe in defending ourselves when attacked. Not that invading Afghanistan was some novel credit to this administration; any president would have done the same thing. Many other presidents, however, would not have had such a disproportionate focus on Iraq. The Afghanistan war and World War 2, are a couple of a very FEW wars that were necessary for American to engage in. The majority of wars that America fought in were not necessary for the good of our country.

Okay, I guess it's time that we moved this to the politics board. LOL

GeeBee

09-28-2005, 08:13 PM

Six million votes is a thrashing

Especially when you had Michael Moore and his fakumentary.

You had "Vote or Die"

You had Mickey Soros.

You had Moveon.org.

You had Dan Blather and memogate.

You had Osama endorsing Kerry also.

Face it. Ketchup Kerry couldn't cut the mustard.

Americans showed force by not buying into the total smear campaign. The biggest smear campaign in the history of american politics.

The fact which Gore Lost by LAW shows what people thought of the previous administration. It shouldn't have even been close considering President Clinton's popularity. republicans get out to vote. Dems stay home and play nintendo hoping their Ilk will take care of it for them.

And Good Times was no spinoff.

I wonder if Dubya would win if the election was held right now.

GeeBee

09-28-2005, 08:15 PM

Do you think James Evan's would have voted for Bush?

Not for all the stolen grocery money in the world. LOL

Ireneparalegal

09-28-2005, 08:17 PM

No, he was forgotten. The man who ordered 9-11 is still running free. Even if he was captured tomorrow, the amount of time it's taken to capture him and the emphasis on Iraq is absurd.

Yes, I do believe in defending ourselves when attacked. Not that invading Afghanistan was some novel credit to this administration; any president would have done the same thing. Many other presidents, however, would not have had such a disproportionate focus on Iraq. The Afghanistan war and World War 2, are a couple of a very FEW wars that were necessary for American to engage in. The majority of wars that America fought in were not necessary for the good of our country.

Okay, I guess it's time that we moved this to the politics board. LOL
I will repeat a post I stated before:
Chris Rock said: "We can find Saddam in a f****ng hole in the ground in another country in the desert, but we can't capture fugitives in our own country!!!??" LMAO!!!

anyway, I had a flashback of when Korean airlines was shot down by the russians, I was sooooo scared we were gonna go to war over that incident. I am so glad we didn't. Years later we found that the russian gov't was hiding evidence and the black box. I know I am going off topic, but just had to throw that in.

anyways, what do u think, who would have James voted for Bush or Kerry?