Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

It happened during A Separation's win.

How will this affect A Separation's chances for Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars? I say it's a bad sign.

Sonic's comment appeared a good 45 minutes before Streep. I was still awake.

He did so somewhere between Meryl Streep and George Clooney.

Huntsman just dropped out.

Okri wrote:Is this a real ad? It says "Paid for by Newt" at the end, but wouldn't it say something else?

Yes, that actually is a real Newt ad. Don't vote for somebody because he speaks French.

Such is the world of Republicans in 2012.

Is this a real ad? It says "Paid for by Newt" at the end, but wouldn't it say something else?

Sonic Youth wrote:

criddic3 wrote:It is a lot of money, but when Obama points to those who make that amount, he makes it seem like some evil thing and seems to equate it with being a millionaire. As some have said, many such people are small business owners who hire people. I concede your point to the extent that it is a lot of money. However, when average people talk about rich people, they are thinking about millionaires. $200,000/yr, even $100,000, is definitely a comfortable place to be (even with all the taxes), but I think you know what I'm talking about.

I give you a lot of credit, Criddic. I've had this discussion with several conservatives, and none of them would concede that $200,000 is a lot of money. I could nitpick over some points you made, but never mind. For once, your answer was refreshing.

On second thought, I'll nitpick. "Millionaire" is sort of a loose term, used to call people who appear rich even if they don't make over a million dollars. They're referring more to a life-style than a gross amount of income. So in a way you're right. Technically, someone who earns $200,000 a year may not be a millionaire. But if you look at their total assets, I'm willing to bet that far more of them are millionaires than you think. And if you're suffering financial hardships when living on such an income, then you're terrible at household management.

Anyway, we've veered off the point. If, as you've conceded, $200,000 is a lot of money, then Gingrich's 2010 income of $2.6 million is "a lot of money" 13 times over. And if he's sincere and doesn't believe he's rich, then he is (as they say) out of touch with the American people. And if you believe he's sincere, then you have no right to accuse Mitt Romney (which I haven't seen you do yet; I'm just saying...) of being out of touch for making a $10,000 bet or saying he likes to fire people.

You bet it's a lot of money. I make around $11,000/yr. I don't mind making that known. People assume that if you're relatively poor you will vote Democrat. There are many reasons not to, and the class warfare is one of them. If i don't make $200,000 a year, it's probably because I don't deserve to. Maybe I'm not smart enough, or maybe life just didn't turn out that way. Anyway, whoever says it's not a lot of money must have a different comparative view of money versus the cost of living. Of course, the more money you have, the more expensive are the things you buy.

criddic3 wrote:It is a lot of money, but when Obama points to those who make that amount, he makes it seem like some evil thing and seems to equate it with being a millionaire. As some have said, many such people are small business owners who hire people. I concede your point to the extent that it is a lot of money. However, when average people talk about rich people, they are thinking about millionaires. $200,000/yr, even $100,000, is definitely a comfortable place to be (even with all the taxes), but I think you know what I'm talking about.

I give you a lot of credit, Criddic. I've had this discussion with several conservatives, and none of them would concede that $200,000 is a lot of money. I could nitpick over some points you made, but never mind. For once, your answer was refreshing.

On second thought, I'll nitpick. "Millionaire" is sort of a loose term, used to call people who appear rich even if they don't make over a million dollars. They're referring more to a life-style than a gross amount of income. So in a way you're right. Technically, someone who earns $200,000 a year may not be a millionaire. But if you look at their total assets, I'm willing to bet that far more of them are millionaires than you think. And if you're suffering financial hardships when living on such an income, then you're terrible at household management.

Anyway, we've veered off the point. If, as you've conceded, $200,000 is a lot of money, then Gingrich's 2010 income of $2.6 million is "a lot of money" 13 times over. And if he's sincere and doesn't believe he's rich, then he is (as they say) out of touch with the American people. And if you believe he's sincere, then you have no right to accuse Mitt Romney (which I haven't seen you do yet; I'm just saying...) of being out of touch for making a $10,000 bet or saying he likes to fire people.

Sonic Youth wrote:

criddic3 wrote:Fairfax County, Virginia ($105,241).

Where I grew up. Sucks that we were apparently #2 that year, though.

It is a lot of money, but when Obama points to those who make that amount, he makes it seem like some evil thing and seems to equate it with being a millionaire. As some have said, many such people are small business owners who hire people. I concede your point to the extent that it is a lot of money. However, when average people talk about rich people, they are thinking about millionaires. $200,000/yr, even $100,000, is definitely a comfortable place to be (even with all the taxes), but I think you know what I'm talking about.

criddic3 wrote:
If that story is true, it's simple to explain. "Rich" is in the eye of the beholder. Obama thinks it's anyone earning $200,000 or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudoun_County,_Virginia

"Loudoun County ( /ˈlaʊdən/ lowd-ən) is a county located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is part of the Washington Metropolitan Area.... As of 2007, Loudoun County has the highest median household income of any county in the United States ($107,207), beating neighboring Fairfax County, Virginia ($105,241). The two counties have been trading places as the highest-income county in the United States in recent years."

In other words, even if you live in the wealthiest county in the U.S., if your household makes $200,000 per year, you're earning much more than most other people who live there. So please stop BS-ing by saying $200,000 isn't rich. That income level is very much in the "rich" category, even if you live in the poshest area in the country.

Big Magilla wrote:The dicitonary describes rich as having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation. Under hat deifintion anyone running for President is rich.

While one who earns $200,000 a year with a large family and/or large expenses may not be rich, it's difficult to comprehend why anyone would not think someone with a net worth of $6.7 million and an annual income in excess of $500,000 whose perfectly coifed wife buys her baubles at Tiffany's wouldn't be considered rich by anyone.

However, I can't find fault with Gingirch's answer to the question posed him. As the saying goes, "ask a silly quesiton, get a silly answer".

lol. True enough.

The dicitonary describes rich as having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation. Under hat deifintion anyone running for President is rich.

While one who earns $200,000 a year with a large family and/or large expenses may not be rich, it's difficult to comprehend why anyone would not think someone with a net worth of $6.7 million and an annual income in excess of $500,000 whose perfectly coifed wife buys her baubles at Tiffany's wouldn't be considered rich by anyone.

However, I can't find fault with Gingirch's answer to the question posed him. As the saying goes, "ask a silly quesiton, get a silly answer".

Sonic Youth wrote:Yeah, Gingrich. Really, sincere.

When Gingrich was campaigning in Laconia on Wednesday, a fellow came up to the former House speaker and asked, “Won’t you buy a home in the Lakes Region if elected president?” This was a reference to Mitt Romney’s house in New Hampshire.

Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that. I’m not rich.”

And his wife Callista quickly added, “We have one home.”

Not rich? This past summer, Gingrich had to file the financial-disclosure form required of presidential candidates. It revealed that he has a net worth of at least $6.7 million and that his income was at least $2.6 million in 2010. That’s about 65 times the income of the average family of four in the United States. That puts him well into the top 1 percent (about $520,000 a year or more) and close to the top 0.1 percent. He, of course, had that $500,000-plus tab at Tiffany’s, and weeks ago was boasting that he pulled in $60,000 a speech. These are the sort of actions that tend to be associated with richness.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/new ... m-not-rich

If that story is true, it's simple to explain. "Rich" is in the eye of the beholder. Obama thinks it's anyone earning $200,000 or more. I don't think Gingrich is insincere in this instance. Perhaps you or I would consider ourselves rich with that money, but certainly if you have one house you may not feel the need to buy another one just to win someone's vote.

Sonic Youth wrote
But Sabin, remortgaging the house is worth it if it means outlawing contraceptives and gay marriage.

I look at the pile that Obama has tried to get done, I look at the pile that he hasn't, and I look at the pile where his hand was either forced or it belonged to an owner I didn't know as well as I thought, and, I'll grant you, it doesn't add up. It doesn't begin to. A month ago, I said to myself that regardless of the fact that nobody on the right could sway me over, I could not remain ideologically consist and vote for Barack Obama. The fact that I live in California means I have the luxury of voting for whatever third party I like with the assurance that I won't wake up and find that Romney took California.

The way I see it, if a President puts something into motion that directly affects you like President Obama has with me, it takes some degree of precedence over everything else. Let's say for the sake of arguing that Obama legalized gay marriage but he did a series of other things that were pretty horrible. Like, unforgivable. But you can marry whomever you want, forge a future for yourself and your chosen loved one regardless of sex. Then I can try to tell you why the person you're voting for is except for that one thing a very bad President, but it's probably not going to work and it shouldn't because that President has done something to directly earn your vote. That's what he's done for me. My reason for voting for President Obama again doesn't have to work for you and if Health Care Reform hasn't directly affected you then it shouldn't. I don't want people to blindly follow him or any President. But personally, I can't not vote for the guy. I've never had a President's actions directly - again, DIRECTLY - affect my life for the better as President Obama's has. Unless John McCain was going to do everything that Obama did with Health Care and better, if Barack Obama isn't the President, then my family is in a very bad place.