John H 😎"US"

No, that is not true. The claim that Dawn Wells (Mary Ann) was the only cast member who got rich from syndication rights—because producers supposedly tried to short her by giving her those rights instead of equal pay—is a long-standing urban legend that has been repeatedly debunked.Snopes rates the claim False. Wells herself called it a “total lie” and a “misconception” in multiple interviews (including with Forbes in 2016 and others). She said the cast “didn’t really get a dime” in meaningful residuals. Under the standard Screen Actors Guild contracts of the mid-1960s, actors typically received residuals only for the first five (or so) reruns of each episode after the original airing. Perpetual syndication royalties of the modern kind were not part of those deals. Wells said her salary was about $700–$750 a week (she noted she was “low on the totem pole”; Tina Louise and Jim Backus got more). She estimated the cast’s total take from the show at roughly $50,000. All the original cast members had essentially the same limited residual structure. None had a special lifelong syndication deal. The person who did well from the reruns was the producer, Sherwood Schwartz (often cited in the $90 million range, though his daughter has called that specific figure an exaggeration). He controlled the valuable syndication rights. The idea that “reruns were unheard of” is overstated. Producers of that era did aim to accumulate enough episodes (usually around three seasons) for syndication packages after the network run ended, because that was where the real profit potential lay. What was less anticipated was the decades-long, near-perpetual afterlife the show eventually enjoyed—and the contracts simply did not give the actors ongoing participation in that.

Nope, the media and you are toxic and you should not be in any postion of authority !

"This is just a snippet of the interaction. What’s the whole story? If you make a judgment based on just this 30+ second clip, then you’re as much of the problem as these two. What’s the officer’s story, and what is the man on the ground’s story? If you can’t answer either, why are you rendering an opinion?" This refers to the October 22, 2026, incident in Wilmington, North Carolina (510 Maides Avenue). Officers approached a vehicle in a driveway/yard area and said they smelled marijuana. They ordered people out. 18-year-old Antwan Greene approached, said it was his yard, and questioned why they were there. The encounter escalated; an officer forced Greene against the side of a car and then to the ground while he resisted. The circulating clip shows the takedown and the officer with a knee on Greene’s back. Onlookers shouted that it was for no reason. Man on the ground’s account (Antwan Greene and those with him): Greene says he was trying to back away and de-escalate, not escalate the situation. He and others (including cousin Isiah Hill, who posted video) deny they were doing anything illegal and claim they were just hanging out; any marijuana smell could have come from elsewhere. Greene’s mother has said officers entered private property without a warrant and used unnecessary force after her son questioned them. Greene has accused the officers of racial profiling and police brutality, and he reported a scar on his left hand plus bruising on his neck and left side. He has said the force was avoidable and that the officer should lose his job. His friend Montez Walker has said the video shows what happened without leaving things out.Court records show citations were issued: Greene and his brother Amir Miller for resisting a public officer; Isiah Hill for simple possession of marijuana. Hill has other marijuana possession charges from earlier in 2026. Greene does not appear to have a detailed prior record in the public reporting.Officer’s / police side: The Wilmington Police Department has not released a detailed public narrative of the officer’s specific actions or full body-camera footage. Their statements emphasize that short social-media clips show only a small portion of what occurred and do not capture the entire situation. A formal, thorough internal investigation is ongoing, including review of all video footage and witness statements. They have said they are committed to accountability, that officers operate within the law and policy, that no injuries to community members or officers were reported, and that they will provide more information as they can. They have asked for public patience while facts are gathered.Your core point is fair: a 30-second clip rarely shows the full sequence of events, what led up to the physical contact, the exact commands given, the level of resistance, or the complete context (including the initial stop based on the odor of marijuana). Until the full review and any bodycam or additional footage are public, neither side’s complete story is fully available. Forming a strong judgment solely from the viral snippet is incomplete. The available public information is limited to the citizen accounts above, the citations that resulted, and the department’s statement that the matter is under review.

Mary Ann or Ginger 2nd youtu.be/XKqFQSMi2zQ?si=HLIJ… via @YouTube I know but Ginger is glamorous in the end it will always be Mary Ann

Mary Ann or Ginger youtu.be/xMFzlJR2BkY?si=r7rn… via @YouTube The age-old question: MARY ANN or GINGER? 🌴☀️ Let’s finally settle this debate once and for all! Ginger may have had the Hollywood glamour, the red hair, and the movie-star sophistication, but Mary Ann was the obvious choice all along! ❤️ Mary Ann was sweet, genuine, down-to-earth, and the kind of woman who could make a deserted island feel like home. She didn’t need a spotlight, a fancy wardrobe, or a Hollywood entrance to capture your attention. Her charm was natural, her smile was unforgettable, and her personality was the real deal. Ginger was the fantasy. Mary Ann was the woman you’d want by your side. 😉 So, gentlemen, if you were stranded on Gilligan’s Island, which one would you choose? For me, it’s MARY ANN — WITHOUT A DOUBT! 🌺 Now let’s hear it! Are you Team Mary Ann or Team Ginger? Drop your choice in the comments! 👇 #MaryAnn #GingersIsland #GilligansIsland #ClassicTV #TeamMaryAnn

Mary Ann or Ginger youtu.be/xMFzlJR2BkY?si=r7rn… via @YouTube

The age-old question: MARY ANN or GINGER? 🌴☀️ Let’s finally settle this debate once and for all! Ginger may have had the Hollywood glamour, the red hair, and the movie-star sophistication, but Mary Ann was the obvious choice all along! ❤️ Mary Ann was sweet, genuine, down-to-earth, and the kind of woman who could make a deserted island feel like home. She didn’t need a spotlight, a fancy wardrobe, or a Hollywood entrance to capture your attention. Her charm was natural, her smile was unforgettable, and her personality was the real deal. Ginger was the fantasy. Mary Ann was the woman you’d want by your side. 😉 So, gentlemen, if you were stranded on Gilligan’s Island, which one would you choose? For me, it’s MARY ANN — WITHOUT A DOUBT! 🌺 Now let’s hear it! Are you Team Mary Ann or Team Ginger? Drop your choice in the comments! 👇 #MaryAnn #GingersIsland #GilligansIsland #ClassicTV #TeamMaryAnn

YES AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY FIRST DEI POTUS & FLOTUS* (* is included due to the many internet conspiracy theories questioning gender) all that said there are nemours scandals below are just a few: Several major scandals and controversies marked the Obama administration (2009–2017), contradicting claims of a “scandal-free” tenure. These ranged from policy failures and bureaucratic misconduct to allegations of politicized government agencies. Here are the most prominent ones, drawn from congressional investigations, inspector general reports, news coverage, and public records.Highest-profile scandals Operation Fast and Furious (ATF gunwalking, ~2009–2011): The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (under the Justice Department) allowed roughly 2,000 firearms to be purchased by straw buyers linked to Mexican drug cartels, hoping to trace them. Many guns were lost; two were recovered at the scene where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in 2010. Mexican authorities later linked weapons from the program to numerous deaths. Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for withholding documents; the DOJ initially denied the operation existed. IRS targeting of conservative groups (2010–2013): The IRS applied extra scrutiny and delayed tax-exempt (501(c)(4)) applications from Tea Party, conservative, and some other groups based on names/keywords like “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or criticism of government spending. Lois Lerner (head of the relevant division) publicly apologized, then invoked the Fifth Amendment. Key emails were later reported as “lost” due to computer crashes. Multiple investigations confirmed inappropriate criteria; no high-level criminal prosecutions resulted. Benghazi attack and response (September 11–12, 2012): Militants attacked U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Administration officials (including Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton) initially emphasized a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam YouTube video. Internal communications and later reports showed awareness of a premeditated terrorist attack. Critics alleged security failures beforehand and a politically motivated narrative ahead of the 2012 election. Multiple congressional probes documented management failures; no criminal charges against senior officials. VA waiting-list scandal (exposed 2014): Veterans Affairs facilities used secret or manipulated waiting lists to hide long delays for care. An inspector general review and audits found systemic problems; dozens of veterans died while waiting. The scandal led to the resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and broader reforms, though problems persisted. Other significant controversies Solyndra and green-energy loan guarantees: The Department of Energy provided a $535 million loan guarantee to solar company Solyndra, which later went bankrupt. Critics pointed to political connections (including fundraising ties) and questioned the broader green-energy loan program’s oversight and results. Similar issues arose with other recipients. Hillary Clinton’s private email server (as Secretary of State): Clinton used a personal server for official State Department business, including classified information. The FBI investigation concluded she and staff were “extremely careless” in handling sensitive material but recommended no charges. This became a major issue in 2016. DOJ surveillance of journalists: The Justice Department secretly obtained phone records for Associated Press reporters and monitored Fox News reporter James Rosen (labeling him a possible co-conspirator in a leak case). This drew criticism from press freedom advocates across the political spectrum. Secret Service issues: Multiple incidents included a 2012 prostitution scandal involving agents in Cartagena ahead of a presidential trip, a White House state-dinner gate-crashing episode, and other security lapses. NSA bulk surveillance (Snowden revelations, 2013): Edward Snowden’s disclosures revealed extensive National Security Agency collection of phone metadata and other programs. This fueled debates over privacy, legality under the Patriot Act/FISA, and the scope of post-9/11 intelligence powers. Additional items often cited: New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case (DOJ dropped charges); GSA conference spending excesses; Bergdahl prisoner swap (five Taliban detainees for one soldier); Libya intervention without explicit congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution; and various executive actions on immigration (DACA) and regulations that critics called overreach. Obama and supporters described many of these as Republican-driven “phony scandals” or isolated bureaucratic errors, while critics (including congressional Republicans, inspectors general, and some media) argued they reflected politicization of agencies, accountability failures, and costs in lives, taxpayer money, and public trust. Congressional investigations, IG reports, and media accounts (including from outlets across the spectrum) documented real misconduct or serious mismanagement in the top cases above, even where no criminal convictions of senior officials followed. Public and historical assessments continue to weigh these against other aspects of the administration.