Forum: General Topic: Has anyone joked about eating your pets, Author Message Enheduanna #1 posted October 11, 2009 at 3:23pm (EST)   Fortunately, pets understand petting, food, and sleeping on warm laps, which speak more strongly than jokes do anyway. Enheduanna #2 posted October 11, 2009 at 1:17pm (EST)   When one of our kitties is misbehaving (and it's always the same one), we joke that we're going to have kitty burgers for dinner.

Forum: General Topic: Ask A Question Game Author Message Enheduanna #3 posted October 10, 2009 at 1:30pm (EST)   Happy Birthday, they!!!

Forum: General Topic: Glenn Beck Author Message Enheduanna #4 posted September 23, 2009 at 7:04pm (EST)   cerealkiller wrote: > Legal maybe, but we don't want commies in positions of potential power > in the government. Unless of course you want this country to become > a socialist state. The very idea that most of the people who are being called "commies" actually subscribe to a communist political identity is absurd. Some of them may want to see certain things socialized, but I think the number of actual communists in this country is low enough that there's no fear that we'll actually become a communist country (which I agree would be bad). The problem is that this knee-jerk reaction to anyone (falsely) labeled a "commie" is that then their ideas are automatically dismissed, regardless of their merits. Socialism is not the same as communism, and it's not inherently linked to totalitarianism. We already have a number of programs in the US that are socialized: social security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of our public schools, to name a few. I would like to see healthcare added to that list, because I think everyone deserves quality medical care and I don't see any better way to do it than to have the state provide a single-payer program. Enheduanna #5 posted September 23, 2009 at 6:57pm (EST)   southernyankee wrote: > And that job would be? No, seriously, what exactly did his position > entail. He's just an empty suit without any special powers. When > Obama's term is up, then thats that. Why does it matter one way or > the other if he keeps his job or not? Not worth stressing about it. If he was an empty shirt, then why the rush to get him to resign? Before he came to the White House, he had built a career working for environmental causes, and he most likely would have been very effective in implementing environmental changes in his White House job, if he'd been allowed to stick around for more than a few months. I think he was brought in for his expertise and for his network in the environmentalist community. > I am thinking more along the lines of hopelessly incompetent to the > point where even if the majority wasn't corrupt (most likely the case), > they'd be too inept to do anything about the corrupt minority. Maybe, although again, that's a separate issue from the videos. I'd to see a list of all the positive things they've done, like Katrina relief and housing advocacy. Enheduanna #6 posted September 22, 2009 at 7:11pm (EST)   I think it's really a matter of perspective. I'm inclined to see him in a more positive light, and you're inclined to see him more negatively. But in my view, he was someone who was angry and rather than just be angry, he turned it around and channeled it into useful activities and did a lot to help people. Also, and this is not limited only to Glenn Beck, all of this anti-communist sentiment worries me. It reeks of McCarthyism. It is perfectly legal to be a communist. Enheduanna #7 posted September 21, 2009 at 8:23pm (EST)   The way I see it, Beck spearheaded a totally unjustified smear campaign against Van Jones, who was doing a good job and should have been left alone to do it. As for Acorn, I agree that the undercover video was very damning, but I'm not sure whether it indicates that Acorn is hopelessly corrupt as a whole organization, or whether there are a few untrustworthy people in a few offices. Also, I don't think that what came out about them was the same thing that Beck was asking about Acorn to start with. So the charges he was making weren't necessarily validated, despite the problems that were exposed. While that certainly doesn't excuse anyone, I think it's important to keep in mind when you're discussing what Beck does specifically. Was he really vindicated, in terms of the specific charges he was making? (Which, as I recall, had to do with illegally registering people to vote.) As for answers provided, it's true that you don't have to accept any answer you hear, and it is good to keep questioning if you have questions. But that doesn't mean that you're actually going to get a different answer, or one that is more true or more to your liking. Enheduanna #8 posted September 21, 2009 at 12:49pm (EST)   CK: If you're asking questions that don't actually have answers--or asking for new answers to questions that have actually already been answered, but which you don't believe--then of course you're not going to get them. SY: That's why I don't like watching pundits of any type. But I think some are less responsible and cause more damage than others do. Enheduanna #9 posted September 20, 2009 at 12:54pm (EST)   It's interesting that he thought it was fair for the most part. I agree that it was pretty restrained as far as criticism goes, and perhaps it depends on who's reading it. I thought they were basically portraying him as a fear-mongering demagogue, but maybe that's because that's already what I think of him. Enheduanna #10 posted September 19, 2009 at 2:30pm (EST)   Do you mean this article? I thought it painted a pretty unflattering portrait of Beck. He comes across as a charismatic entertainer whose main skill is identifying people's fears and playing to them because it increases his ratings and earnings. Here's what I took to be the article's ultimate assessment of Beck and other media entertainers like him, both on the left and the right: How can we trust each other, though, when the integrated economy of ranters and their delighted-to-be-outraged critics are such a model of profitability? A microphone, a camera and a polarizing host are all it takes to get the money moving. Because audiences have been so widely fragmented by the new technology, ratings that would have gotten a talk-show host canceled in the late 1980s create a superstar today ... Extreme talk, especially as practiced by a genuine talent like Beck, squeezes maximum profit from a relatively small, deeply invested audience, selling essentially the same product in multiple forms. The more the host is criticized, the more committed the original audience becomes. And the more committed the audience, the bigger target it presents to the rant industry on the other side of the spectrum. A liberal group called Color of Change has organized an advertiser boycott of Beck's TV show — great publicity for the group and a boon to Beck's ratings. Next page (only 10 shown here)