Stimulas money goes to porn

[Maple]

I remember reading the no-stimulus stimulus bill and saw at that time back in Febuary that millions went to The Arts and Entertainment industry, what do you expect. I am not at all surprised.

 

[DiveCon]

The theatre simply rents them the space.

them

And? What's your point?

when they(the producers of this PORN) rent the building, THEY( the producers of the PORN) make MONEY

 

[midcan5]

Let's weight this, shall we.

Money for the Arts or money for bombs to kill Iraqi people and children?

Money for the wealthy so they can buy homes in Morocco or money for Arts?

Money for wealthy families such as the Waltons, 30 plus billion for a few or money for Arts.

Money for bridges to nowhere or money for the Arts?

Money for death or money for the Arts?

Seems you conservative republicans spend enough on the wealthy, corporations and things that kill, I vote for the Arts.

"Art teaches nothing except the significance of life." Arthur Miller

 

[Emma]

them

And? What's your point?

when they(the producers of this PORN) rent the building, THEY( the producers of the PORN) make MONEY

First of all, the ONLY thing you know of the production is the name and that it includes some nudity. That does not mean it is porn.

Second, you say it allows "them" to make money, then when I ask 'who?' you respond by quoting me saying the theatre rents them the space, and stating "them" which means you're talking about the theatre. Counterpulse is a nonprofit organization.

 

[DiveCon]

And? What's your point?

when they(the producers of this PORN) rent the building, THEY( the producers of the PORN) make MONEY

First of all, the ONLY thing you know of the production is the name and that it includes some nudity. That does not mean it is porn.

Second, you say it allows "them" to make money, then when I ask 'who?' you respond by quoting me saying the theatre rents them the space, and stating "them" which means you're talking about the theatre. Counterpulse is a nonprofit organization.

yes, the producers of the flim rents the space to show their movie for which they charge entry fees to see in which to MAKE money


how is that NOT helping the produers make money since the tax payers paid for the costs of keeping that theater open

 

[KittenKoder]

You know, if there is an ounce of truth to the title, so fucking what, I hate porn myself but it's a billion dollar a year industry. Stimulating that would stimulate the economy, better than where people are cpending money the most right now, gambling and booze, sorry, but porn is better than both those.

 

[Emma]

when they(the producers of this PORN) rent the building, THEY( the producers of the PORN) make MONEY

First of all, the ONLY thing you know of the production is the name and that it includes some nudity. That does not mean it is porn.

Second, you say it allows "them" to make money, then when I ask 'who?' you respond by quoting me saying the theatre rents them the space, and stating "them" which means you're talking about the theatre. Counterpulse is a nonprofit organization.

yes, the producers of the flim rents the space to show their movie for which they charge entry fees to see in which to MAKE money


how is that NOT helping the produers make money since the tax payers paid for the costs of keeping that theater open

You are confusing your theatres here. What I'm referring to in the above post is pervert on parade or whatever the hell it was called lol.

BTW. What do they charge for admission to either of these (the film or the pervert thing) and does it leave them with a profit after the cost of rental, etc.?

 

[KittenKoder]

First of all, the ONLY thing you know of the production is the name and that it includes some nudity. That does not mean it is porn.

Second, you say it allows "them" to make money, then when I ask 'who?' you respond by quoting me saying the theatre rents them the space, and stating "them" which means you're talking about the theatre. Counterpulse is a nonprofit organization.

yes, the producers of the flim rents the space to show their movie for which they charge entry fees to see in which to MAKE money


how is that NOT helping the produers make money since the tax payers paid for the costs of keeping that theater open

You are confusing your theatres here. What I'm referring to in the above post is pervert on parade or whatever the hell it was called lol.

BTW. What do they charge for admission to either of these (the film or the pervert thing) and does it leave them with a profit after the cost of rental, etc.?

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Emma]

yes, the producers of the flim rents the space to show their movie for which they charge entry fees to see in which to MAKE money


how is that NOT helping the produers make money since the tax payers paid for the costs of keeping that theater open

You are confusing your theatres here. What I'm referring to in the above post is pervert on parade or whatever the hell it was called lol.

BTW. What do they charge for admission to either of these (the film or the pervert thing) and does it leave them with a profit after the cost of rental, etc.?

WTF are you talking about?

I was pointing out that the money was going to the nonprofit theatres, not the filmmakers or the performers.

I think what DC is saying is that, in a round-about way, the taxpayers are supporting the filmmakers and the performers because they are charging admission.

 

[KittenKoder]

You are confusing your theatres here. What I'm referring to in the above post is pervert on parade or whatever the hell it was called lol.

BTW. What do they charge for admission to either of these (the film or the pervert thing) and does it leave them with a profit after the cost of rental, etc.?

WTF are you talking about?

I was pointing out that the money was going to the nonprofit theatres, not the filmmakers or the performers.

I think what DC is saying is that, in a round-about way, the taxpayers are supporting the filmmakers and the performers because they are charging admission.

Non-profit does not mean free admission. It just means that all funds earned go straight to paying for those who made it and all the costs to make it, anything over is either donated to something or held for payment of future productions.

 

[Emma]

WTF are you talking about?

I was pointing out that the money was going to the nonprofit theatres, not the filmmakers or the performers.

I think what DC is saying is that, in a round-about way, the taxpayers are supporting the filmmakers and the performers because they are charging admission.

Non-profit does not mean free admission. It just means that all funds earned go straight to paying for those who made it and all the costs to make it, anything over is either donated to something or held for payment of future productions.

I know. But I think he was referring to the filmmakers/performers making a profit on ticket sales, not the theatres.

 

[KittenKoder]

I was pointing out that the money was going to the nonprofit theatres, not the filmmakers or the performers.

I think what DC is saying is that, in a round-about way, the taxpayers are supporting the filmmakers and the performers because they are charging admission.

Non-profit does not mean free admission. It just means that all funds earned go straight to paying for those who made it and all the costs to make it, anything over is either donated to something or held for payment of future productions.

I know. But I think he was referring to the filmmakers/performers making a profit on ticket sales, not the theatres.

Actually, that's exactly what nonprofit means, the theater uses all funds they earn to pay for the movie and employees, thus the performers/actors/filmmakers/etc. would get paid as well. It's the organization that does not get more than operating costs. Also, all those paid are paid less than "normal" wages normally.

 

[Emma]

Non-profit does not mean free admission. It just means that all funds earned go straight to paying for those who made it and all the costs to make it, anything over is either donated to something or held for payment of future productions.

I know. But I think he was referring to the filmmakers/performers making a profit on ticket sales, not the theatres.

Actually, that's exactly what nonprofit means, the theater uses all funds they earn to pay for the movie and employees, thus the performers/actors/filmmakers/etc. would get paid as well. It's the organization that does not get more than operating costs. Also, all those paid are paid less than "normal" wages normally.

I understand. I would assume the filmmakers make some sort of royalty. It's not clear if the performers in the perv out show are paid or not. The film could probably be argued to be pornography (although by its description, it's more of a campy parody); Symmetry isn't and the only thing we know about the other is its name and that it does have some nudity. I think the outrage is greatly overdone here.

 

[sarahgop]

obama is a disgrace. he will lead us to ruin

 

[Emma]

obama is a disgrace. he will lead us to ruin

I didn't realize you were here too.

 

[SimonSheppard]

OK, I know I'm late to this party, but maybe someone is still reading this thread.

I happen to be co-curator and co-host of the much maligned Perverts Put Out!, so I can answer some questiions that have been raised. PPO! is not a benefit for CounterPULSE, but for the Center for Sex and Culture, run by my lovely cohost, Dr. Carol Queen. The Center usually nets in the low three figures from the show, and I make considerably less than that in consideration of my doing most of the organizational work. We charge, as it says on the PPO! webpage, $10-15, and no one is turned away for lack of funds. The only financial connection we have with CounterPULSE is as a renter. We pay them to use the space for a night, and for the work of their tech guy. The exert no control one way or the other over the content of our shows, which we may cheekily refer to as "porn," but generally consist of thoughtful/funny/liberating readings about sex. (Not that we'd veto nudity or, well, anything else that's legal. Performers have carte blanche, as long as they don't frighten the horses.) And, in fact, we've staged PPO! in a couple of other venues besides CounterPULSE.

I hope that clears the details up.

And, as Emma points out, we at PPO! get not a dollar of "stimulas" money. One poster's argument that we receive federal support because the NEA funds some of CounterPULSE is, well, convoluted at best, silly at worst, and certainly not the implication of the Fox report ; whatever sleazy equivocating the newscasters make, what rightwingers take away from the story is, believe me, "Obama's funding smut."

Fortunately, because it's such a nonstarter except to prudes and conservative loonies taking a break from Birthing, the story has basically gotten zero traction. Just a few threads in the blogosphere, but no responsible outlet of the MSM gives a damn. And that - by basically ignoring Fox - is what we and CounterPULSE has been hoping for: Let the blowhards' bloviating blow over. Anyhow, I don't have the time to play footsies with Greta van Susteren; I'm too busy destroying American culture.

 

[Emma]

Thanks for the info

 

[DiveCon]

OK, I know I'm late to this party, but maybe someone is still reading this thread.

I happen to be co-curator and co-host of the much maligned Perverts Put Out!, so I can answer some questiions that have been raised. PPO! is not a benefit for CounterPULSE, but for the Center for Sex and Culture, run by my lovely cohost, Dr. Carol Queen. The Center usually nets in the low three figures from the show, and I make considerably less than that in consideration of my doing most of the organizational work. We charge, as it says on the PPO! webpage, $10-15, and no one is turned away for lack of funds. The only financial connection we have with CounterPULSE is as a renter. We pay them to use the space for a night, and for the work of their tech guy. The exert no control one way or the other over the content of our shows, which we may cheekily refer to as "porn," but generally consist of thoughtful/funny/liberating readings about sex. (Not that we'd veto nudity or, well, anything else that's legal. Performers have carte blanche, as long as they don't frighten the horses.) And, in fact, we've staged PPO! in a couple of other venues besides CounterPULSE.

I hope that clears the details up.

And, as Emma points out, we at PPO! get not a dollar of "stimulas" money. One poster's argument that we receive federal support because the NEA funds some of CounterPULSE is, well, convoluted at best, silly at worst, and certainly not the implication of the Fox report ; whatever sleazy equivocating the newscasters make, what rightwingers take away from the story is, believe me, "Obama's funding smut."

Fortunately, because it's such a nonstarter except to prudes and conservative loonies taking a break from Birthing, the story has basically gotten zero traction. Just a few threads in the blogosphere, but no responsible outlet of the MSM gives a damn. And that - by basically ignoring Fox - is what we and CounterPULSE has been hoping for: Let the blowhards' bloviating blow over. Anyhow, I don't have the time to play footsies with Greta van Susteren; I'm too busy destroying American culture.

and how much more would it cost you to put on your show had the theater not got government money?

 

[Emma]

and how much more would it cost you to put on your show had the theater not got government money?

That would depend on how often they rent out the theatre space.

 

[DiveCon]

and how much more would it cost you to put on your show had the theater not got government money?

That would depend on how often they rent out the theatre space.

uh, no kidding
thats why i asked "how much more it would cost to put on your show" (note singular)

you can not make the claim to not have bennefited because it would more than likely cost you more to put on your show because the theater would need to actually EARN that money rather than get it from the government
its not the show that is the problem, its the government money