|
Post by Sue on Nov 5, 2009 9:28:49 GMT -5
Well, that confirms that. After watching "V" I definitely thought that if I came at it from a Republican POV I would think that they were definitely writing an allegory (is that the correct usage?) to the Obama groupies. And, I just read exactly that comment on TVGuide.com. [They have a "what is your favorite new show" thread and one commenter said "V, by far, for the great analogies to the obummer administration!] Not surprised, really, that someone would draw that parallel (even though I don't agree). So, back when the original was aired who were we supposed to this the "V" were analogous to? Let me go on recordas hating the "universal health care" line. Yes, just in case the analogy was too subtle for you to pick up they threw in that big flashing red light: "The BAD ALIENS are for universal healthcare."
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 5, 2009 11:22:46 GMT -5
Let me go on recordas hating the "universal health care" line. Yes, just in case the analogy was too subtle for you to pick up they threw in that big flashing red light: "The BAD ALIENS are for universal healthcare." There was one post on the TV Guide site trying to start a conspiracy theory that the reason they switched show frontrunners and are only going to show 4 episodes and break until March was because of pressure to squelch the whole apparent Obama admin analogy. A 4 month hiatus might kill it. I am willing to overlook that kind of stuff (possible underlying political agenda) for the other good messages that I hope we'll see - like the strength of love and goodness and how it most often wins out in the end - from humans and lizards. Besides - what better way to put across the message - beware of strangers bearing gifts - than to pick something that is topical now - like universal health care? And then watch how humans react to it. Some will be very skeptical about it and others will be taken in and hope that it's true and that the V's are good.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 5, 2009 11:41:25 GMT -5
Huh. What a doof. I remember reading about this win (I was all - Yay! because I do like to root for the home boys. ) and thinking to myself that the title 'American' given to someone who was not born here is going to probably ruffle some idiot's feathers. Was thinking that Rush would pick up this banner. It is heartening to see him getting so much heat for his article. The 'nationalism' tone of his article is very disturbing, because it is an insidious thing and not often recognized by good people. Better that it is out in the open so people can see it for what it is, tho. Talk on, idiots! You make good fodder for intelligent humans' opinions and rebuttals.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 6, 2009 9:48:17 GMT -5
The BIL, opening the Senate in prayer: (apparently it's one long tape for the entire day so keeps getting longer and longer. Tim gets introduced at about the 27 second mark and prays for 45 seconds. If you look at the detailed transcript on the left side of the screen, scroll to the very top and click on the first segment.) www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289842-1
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 6, 2009 9:57:29 GMT -5
Very nicely done. Was that his first time?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 6, 2009 10:05:54 GMT -5
Very nicely done. Was that his first time? Yes. And the prayer had to be vetted ahead of time. Apparently he has "privilege of the floor" for the day. And he'll be attending/leading? a lunchtime Bible study for a group of Senators; and he may even be allotted some time to actually address the Senate. But I'm not sure he's going to do that. I know he has to be in Winnetka, IL for a book signing by 7 pm tonight. Carolyn and Allie are going to see him.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 7, 2009 23:17:04 GMT -5
The House just passed a health-care bill, 220-215 (close!) withone republican breaking with his party to vote "for."
Julia, shaking my head...
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 14, 2009 7:51:10 GMT -5
I love the dressing down Jon Stewart gave Fox News this week. "We alter reality to fit a preconceived narrative" indeed. I suspect they are just preaching to the choir (though people like my parents do watch both...), but it will be interesting if anyone does any more thorough critique of Fox News and finds more of the like.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 14, 2009 14:23:22 GMT -5
I love the dressing down Jon Stewart gave Fox News this week. "We alter reality to fit a preconceived narrative" indeed. I suspect they are just preaching to the choir (though people like my parents do watch both...), but it will be interesting if anyone does any more thorough critique of Fox News and finds more of the like. You can see a video (very funny) of this, here.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 17, 2009 11:36:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 17, 2009 13:29:37 GMT -5
I honestly cannot understand how this kind of action doesn't violate their nonprofit status with the IRS. Julia, it's obviously political advocacy per se
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 17, 2009 14:31:57 GMT -5
I honestly cannot understand how this kind of action doesn't violate their nonprofit status with the IRS. Julia, it's obviously political advocacy per se I think it's time to revoke tax-free status for religious organizations, and in that I mean all of them. It's too hard to regulate them, and as we saw during the last administration, far too easy to play favorites.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 17, 2009 14:52:38 GMT -5
I honestly cannot understand how this kind of action doesn't violate their nonprofit status with the IRS. Julia, it's obviously political advocacy per se I think it's time to revoke tax-free status for religious organizations, and in that I mean all of them. It's too hard to regulate them, and as we saw during the last administration, far too easy to play favorites. Shhhhhh....don't let the Bingo players hear you say that.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 17, 2009 17:01:07 GMT -5
TWO THINGS: FIRST, ABOUT THE ARTICLE: It is a terrible piece of reporting. Very confusing- First it says: "The church wants to feel free to discriminate against gays while receiving public funds and the D.C. Council is having none of it." Then it says the dispute started after council voted down an amendment that: "would have allowed individuals to deny wedding services, such as wedding cakes and hall rentals based on their religious beliefs." So this suggests that denial of wedding services and cakes and hall rentals won't be allowed . . . doesn't it? But then it says that the Church would not be forced to provide services or hall rentals . . . "but they would have to continue to [emphasis mine] obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and women." Which would mean what exactly, for the church? I assume . . . nothing, unless it is receiving public funds? Or? I can't tell. And is the Church actually threatening to stop doing charitable works, or just saying "we won't work with the city to provide them" (receiving funds, and donating funds) anymore? First the article says the Church said it would "stop helping residents;" then it says the Church would "cease charitable work with the city." So . . . I dunno. SECOND, ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER With the disclaimer that I'm using the scant knowledge I was able to glean from the article: I think Karen has gotten to the heart of the matter: The Catholic Church and the DC Council don't belong in bed together. They both got into bed years ago, sounds like, with their eyes open. And if they've both decided they no longer like each other's company, then definitely, they should part ways. Both sides can do the huffy-huffy superiority dance on their way out, if they like. But definitely, the Church isn't wrong to be talking about leaving, and the Council isn't wrong to be responding: "Go ahead."
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 24, 2009 15:32:51 GMT -5
From SNL, Palin 2012, The Movie. I don't know whether to or or . I mean, VP Glenn Beck, a world of ewwwwww . Anne, "from the mind of Keith Olbermann", hee
|
|