Jump to content

The New V Blog Is Up


Recommended Posts

as i have stated before..when trying to get involved in any discussion but poker....especially when spekaing of race and politics and in voicing his disagreements,daniel comes off as someone who dropped out of school and spent most of his time in a cardroom with cardplayer,s not a classroom interracting as a normal adolecent would...im sure he is a great guy to both his family and friends as he is to the public and means absolutely no harm....but his awkwardness and naivete in certain social situations and discussions show that for all that poker brilliance and playing since he was a teen, something had to then be lacking somewhere...and his social and political commentary shows it...sometimes the school of hard knox misses some key lessons....his bank account, success, family , friends and good heart is more than most people could ask for in life..u can't skip years of education and social interraction in a diverse atmosphere without missing something...he video blog and his last few political commentaries show that...i will always call him on what i disagree with or when i think he hasnt done his homework but have seen so reason to think any of his statements or videos might come and try to cause actual harm or disrespect to any race...just bush...lol
Holy S*! Talk about a lack of education. Didn't your english teacher teach you about run-on sentences?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 284
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Daniel, I think your impression was very impressive. However, with all due respect, I am surprised that you don't seem to be appreciating why you generated the reaction you did with it. And since yo

?

Holy S*! Talk about a lack of education. Didn't your english teacher teach you about run-on sentences?
Translation: I can't disagree with your post but love Daniel and will defend him regardless, so I'll pick on the grammar of the poster instead. Well Played.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, to not understand the difference between blackface and what DN did in that blog is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure nobody got mad at Dan Akroyd after that scene in Trading Places where he basically does the same thing as in this video blog.
One of the worst movies along these lines that I recall in the last 25+ years or so was Soul Man starring C. Thomas Howell. Hard to believe James Earl Jones actually signed on for that one. That movie would be absolutely crucified (hope I didn't offend any Christians there) these days.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling someone a jerk isn't psychoanalyzing. Psychoanalyzing would be getting into specifics about his upbringing and how that's effected its growth and maturity in his later years. Saying "Bush doesn't care about black people" isn't psychoanalyzing, but it is when you say "Bush doesn't care about black people because he went to Ivy League schools and because he was raised rich he lacks the sense of empathy required to relate with the impoverished communities of the world"Which is kind of what you did. Its just rude, that's all I'm saying. Who knows maybe DN says what I just said about Bush. Either way I don't support trying to bring the psychology and up brining of someone you don't know into it unless you're a psychologist or have met them and know the intimate details of their life. Otherwise you're assuming a lot about their personality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen person with a gangster as avatar, there is a diffrence between judging a person who is the president of the united states, and someone who is writing a blog. The reason is that the blog is only about opinion, not like the president which presents not only opinion; but also followed by action which then the result is reviewed. Daniel is reviewing the presidents result and action(and his review of him is about the same as 90% of planet earth) You are reviewing the mental state of daniel which seems based on stereotypes of others who have the same beliefs as him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen person with a gangster as avatar, there is a diffrence between judging a person who is the president of the united states, and someone who is writing a blog. The reason is that the blog is only about opinion, not like the president which presents not only opinion; but also followed by action which then the result is reviewed. Daniel is reviewing the presidents result and action(and his review of him is about the same as 90% of planet earth) You are reviewing the mental state of daniel which seems based on stereotypes of others who have the same beliefs as him.
You are a racist.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My $0.02:1) Chris has a right to be offended. No-one can take that away from him. But he is way wrong to assume that every other black person will be similarly offended. And in any case, being offended by this doesn't make Daniel racist.2) If Chris had read all of DN's ramblings over the years(tough i know), he would know that DN is rather fond of Black people in general.3) Vernacular decent, accent good(though wavered into canadian at times), Dominoes reference priceless...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I guess this is the last time DN is going to try to be funny in a video blog... thanks for ruining it guys.And by the way racist or not (which it wasn't), its DN's blog and he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My $0.02:1) Chris has a right to be offended. No-one can take that away from him. But he is way wrong to assume that every other black person will be similarly offended. And in any case, being offended by this doesn't make Daniel racist.2) If Chris had read all of DN's ramblings over the years(tough i know), he would know that DN is rather fond of Black people in general.3) Vernacular decent, accent good(though wavered into canadian at times), Dominoes reference priceless...
I think it is ridiculous (and racist) to always assume black skinned people all have the same opinion. Oh yeah...the idea of African American Month, NAACP, etc...all inherently racist. (we can start a separate thread to discuss this)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough debate. We need a poll. One of you smart, computer internet, forum savvy, recently graduated, young fellas set us up a poll where we can vote on this. Offensive and over the line .... or.... Humorous and no harm done? Set it up and let's vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow I guess this is the last time DN is going to try to be funny in a video blog... thanks for ruining it guys.And by the way racist or not (which it wasn't), its DN's blog and he can do whatever the hell he wants.
Agreed. Blacks imatating white people=comedy. White imatating blacks=racist UTTERLY STUPID!This is whole 'racial crap' is going to come to a head in the next few years. Obama for example: White mother & kenyan father, therefore not "black like most black americans" The fact that everyone makes a big deal about "a black candidate" is racist. When you call out color, that's what you will initially think of. Al Sharpton's opinion does not reflect all dark-skinned people's opinions
Link to post
Share on other sites
Calling someone a jerk isn't psychoanalyzing. Psychoanalyzing would be getting into specifics about his upbringing and how that's effected its growth and maturity in his later years. Saying "Bush doesn't care about black people" isn't psychoanalyzing, but it is when you say "Bush doesn't care about black people because he went to Ivy League schools and because he was raised rich he lacks the sense of empathy required to relate with the impoverished communities of the world"Which is kind of what you did. Its just rude, that's all I'm saying. Who knows maybe DN says what I just said about Bush. Either way I don't support trying to bring the psychology and up brining of someone you don't know into it unless you're a psychologist or have met them and know the intimate details of their life. Otherwise you're assuming a lot about their personality.
So you aren't psychoanalyzing as long as you don't complete your thought like a coward?You say:Saying "Bush doesn't care about black people" isn't psychoanalyzing, but it is when you say "Bush doesn't care about black people because he went to Ivy League schools and because he was raised rich he lacks the sense of empathy required to relate with the impoverished communities of the world"
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you aren't psychoanalyzing as long as you don't complete your thought like a coward?
:rolleyes:No you're coming up with reasons that imply you know anything whatsoever about what the person on a personal level.Whatever nobody cares and wants to read this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen person with a gangster as avatar, there is a diffrence between judging a person who is the president of the united states, and someone who is writing a blog. The reason is that the blog is only about opinion, not like the president which presents not only opinion; but also followed by action which then the result is reviewed. Daniel is reviewing the presidents result and action(and his review of him is about the same as 90% of planet earth) You are reviewing the mental state of daniel which seems based on stereotypes of others who have the same beliefs as him.
They are BOTH public figures.I don't think 90% of the population agrees that President Bush reminds them of Logan on "24"...I guess he was just "dumbing" the blog down with a junior high analogy for the "masses". Yeah thats it.Or deciding to call Phil Gordon out in his blog to defend EL, that wasn't silly and immature (two wrongs don't make a right and EL is a big boy), but it did take the focus off of yesterdays blog for sure.The Video Blog, well I haven't seen it. Don't need to and won't comment on it. But there is a pattern here, and you can argue all you want about my views on the matter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
They are BOTH public figures.I don't think 90% of the population agrees that President Bush reminds them of Logan on "24"...I guess he was just "dumbing" the blog down with a junior high analogy for the "masses". Yeah thats it.Or deciding to call Phil Gordon out in his blog to defend EL, that wasn't silly and immature (two wrongs don't make a right and EL is a big boy), but it did take the focus off of yesterdays blog for sure.The Video Blog, well I haven't seen it. Don't need to and won't comment on it. But there is a pattern here, and you can argue all you want about my views on the matter.
i mean 90% of the world, not 90% of the united states. and its probably more like 95percent or maybe a bit more.
Link to post
Share on other sites

so "one" may be offended because of the face paint?I'm just trying to understand here.most Jamican's are black, right? so when he was trying to do an inpersonation of a an example of a marijuana smoking Jamican, wouldn't it be reasonable to use a darker skin tone than DN's to help the character?similar to any skit/character really where anyone changes their appearence to look the part?I guess i'm just confused...it was a character...right? he portrayed scotty and put on a mullet, is that offensive to people that are asian? if it's really just a matter of him using perhaps too dark a color...then I think people are just looking for racist connotations in a skit that really does not have them..and quite frankly has really not point except that DN has been known to do 'characters' before and he was just goofing around...I don't know...human is human...race is something created by societies...and it's sad that it is a reality...but I think it's equally sad that we as a people cannot laugh at something that obviously was not meant out hatred, or anger, or spite..etc etc.Chapelle show was quite funny, because it made light of all this crap. It had a point, with humor. DNs sketch was not trying to make any point. He was just doing a few characters he thinks he is good at. I guess I am just missing, or not fully understanding, why this is so offensive? Is it because of racial history in America? Is it just the idea of a white person impersonating a Jamican that is wrong? Usually in Chapelle's skits he is making fun of a white guy, right? Or some stereotype in regards to any race, including african americans... and it's all in good fun..but there are also social commentaries he makes in his show. In this skit I dont think DN was making fun of Jamicans, nor trying to supply his "social commentary"...he was simply doing an extension of a character, probably off the basis of a Jamican, or a few Jamicans, he has met in the past. It would be one thing if he was making fun, and belittling their culture or society, but I mean, come on...I honestly look @ it as just him practicing his characters and felt like goofing around with them...That's how I see it...- Jordan

Link to post
Share on other sites
so "one" may be offended because of the face paint?I'm just trying to understand here.
i'm offended as a fan of comedy.blackface is just never funny.never.ask ted danson.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm offended as a fan of comedy.blackface is just never funny.never.ask ted danson.
this may be dumb...but what exactly is blackface?is it using to much face paint?is there a whiteface?is there a hispanicface?asianface?I'm seriously asking here, cause each of these "races" could be offended at either of them. --Me personally, I wasn't paying attention to how much face paint was used...I was just assuming that he was trying to look more in character for the part...and seeing how Jamican's usually are darker toned, then using some skin paint would be used.- Jordan
Link to post
Share on other sites
so "one" may be offended because of the face paint?I'm just trying to understand here.most Jamican's are black, right? so when he was trying to do an inpersonation of a an example of a marijuana smoking Jamican, wouldn't it be reasonable to use a darker skin tone than DN's to help the character?similar to any skit/character really where anyone changes their appearence to look the part?I guess i'm just confused...it was a character...right? he portrayed scotty and put on a mullet, is that offensive to people that are asian? if it's really just a matter of him using perhaps too dark a color...then I think people are just looking for racist connotations in a skit that really does not have them..and quite frankly has really not point except that DN has been known to do 'characters' before and he was just goofing around...I don't know...human is human...race is something created by societies...and it's sad that it is a reality...but I think it's equally sad that we as a people cannot laugh at something that obviously was not meant out hatred, or anger, or spite..etc etc.Chapelle show was quite funny, because it made light of all this crap. It had a point, with humor. DNs sketch was not trying to make any point. He was just doing a few characters he thinks he is good at. I guess I am just missing, or not fully understanding, why this is so offensive? Is it because of racial history in America? Is it just the idea of a white person impersonating a Jamican that is wrong? Usually in Chapelle's skits he is making fun of a white guy, right? and it's all in good fun..but there are also social commentaries he is makes in his show. In this skit I dont think DN was making fun of Jamicans, nor trying to supply his "social commentary"...he was simply doing an extension of a character, probably off the basis of a Jamican, or a few Jamicans, he has met in the past. It would be one thing if he was making fun, and belittling their culture or society, but I mean, come on...I honestly look @ it as just him practicing his characters and felt like goofing around with them...That's how I see it...- Jordan
If you are confident in your impression..no makeup needed...end of story..no one needs to see the blackface for a good jamaican impression just like he doesnt need to look asian when doing scottyhe was just trying a little too hard , I think. But as a public figure he needs to think...Look at what Ted Danson went thru dressing in "costume/blackface" to roast Whoopie Goldberg at the Friars...He got totally hammered...And he was dating her and she helped him put on the damn makeup...lol...The fact he meant nothing by it is not in question, of course he didnt...the lack of thought process in putting this and some other written blogs out there certainly brings a collective "what was he thinking"
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...