Full Version: movies and snacks
farkoff.
your brilliant debate ability overwhelms us
farkoff.
do you practice in front of a mirror?
farkoff.
you got nothin
farkoff.
One thing.
point
farkoff.
farkoff.
TV's 'Laugh-In' Comic Dick Martin Dead At 86
Comic Died Of Respiratory Complications
LOS ANGELES -- Dick Martin, the zany half of the comedy team whose "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" took television by storm in the 1960s, making stars of Goldie Hawn and Lily Tomlin and creating such national catch-phrases as "Sock it to me!" has died. He was 86.
Martin, who went on to become one of television's busiest directors after splitting with Dan Rowan in the late 1970s, died Saturday night of respiratory complications at a hospital in Santa Monica, family spokesman Barry Greenberg said.
"He had had some pretty severe respiratory problems for many years, and he had pretty much stopped breathing a week ago," Greenberg said.
Martin had lost the use of one of his lungs as a teenager, and needed supplemental oxygen for most of the day in his later years.
He was surrounded by family and friends when he died just after 6 p.m., Greenberg said.
"Laugh-in," which debuted in January 1968, was unlike any comedy-variety show before it. Rather than relying on a series of tightly scripted song-and-dance segments, it offered up a steady, almost stream-of-consciousness run of non-sequitur jokes, political satire and madhouse antics from a cast of talented young actors and comedians that also included Ruth Buzzi, Arte Johnson, Henry Gibson, Jo Anne Worley and announcer Gary Owens.
Presiding over it all were Rowan and Martin, the veteran nightclub comics whose standup banter put their own distinct spin on the show.
Like all straight men, Rowan provided the voice of reason, striving to correct his partner's absurdities. Martin, meanwhile, was full of bogus, often risque theories about life, which he appeared to hold with unwavering certainty.
Against this backdrop, audiences were taken from scene to scene by quick, sometimes psychedelic-looking visual cuts, where they might see Hawn, Worley and other women dancing in bathing suits with political slogans, or sometimes just nonsense, painted on their bodies. Other times, Gibson, clutching a flower, would recite nonsensical poetry or Johnson would impersonate a comical Nazi spy.
"Laugh-In" astounded audiences and critics alike. For two years the show topped the Nielsen ratings, and its catchphrases -- "Sock it to me," "You bet your sweet bippy" and "Look that up in your Funk and Wagnall's" -- were recited across the country.
Stars such as John Wayne and Kirk Douglas were delighted to make brief appearances, and even Richard Nixon, running for president in 1968, dropped in to shout a befuddled sounding, "Sock it to me!" His opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, was offered equal time but declined because his handlers thought it would appear undignified.
Rowan and Martin landed the show just as their comedy partnership was approaching its zenith and the nation's counterculture was expanding into the mainstream.
The two were both struggling actors when they met in 1952. Rowan had sold his interest in a used car dealership to take acting lessons, and Martin, who had written gags for TV shows and comedians, was tending bar in Los Angeles to pay the rent.
Rowan, hearing Martin was looking for a comedy partner, visited him at the bar, where he found him eating a banana.
"Why are you eating a banana?" he asked.
"If you've ever eaten here, you'd know what's with the banana," he replied, and a comedy team was born.
Although their early gigs in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley were often performed gratis, they donned tuxedos for them and put on an air of success.
"We were raw," Martin recalled years later, "but we looked good together and we were funny."
They gradually worked up to the top night spots in New York, Miami and Las Vegas and began to appear regularly on television.
In 1966, they provided the summer replacement for "The Dean Martin Show." Within two years, they were headlining their own show.
The novelty of "Laugh-In" diminished with each season, however, and as major players such as Hawn and Tomlin moved on to bigger careers, interest in the series faded.
After the show folded in 1973, Rowan and Martin capitalized on their fame with a series of high-paid engagements around the country. They parted amicably in 1977.
"Dan has diabetes, and his doctor advised him to cool it," Martin told The Associated Press at the time.
Rowan, a sailing enthusiast, spent his last years touring the canals of Europe on a houseboat. He died in 1987.
Martin moved onto the game-show circuit, but quickly tired of it. After he complained about the lack of challenges in his career, fellow comic Bob Newhart's agent suggested he take up directing.
He was reluctant at first, but after observing on "The Bob Newhart Show," he decided to try. He would recall later that it was "like being thrown into the deep end of the swimming pool and being told to sink or swim."
Soon he was one of the industry's busiest TV directors, working on numerous episodes of "Newhart" as well as such shows as "In the Heat of the Night," "Archie Bunker's Place" and "Family Ties."
Born into a middle-class family in Battle Creek, Mich., Martin had worked in a Ford auto assembly plant after high school.
After an early failed marriage, he was for years a confirmed bachelor. He finally settled down in middle age, marrying Dolly Read, a former bunny at the Playboy Club in London. Survivors include his wife and two sons, actor Richard Martin and Cary Martin.
At Martin's request there will be no funeral, Greenberg said.
Martin lost the use of his right lung when he was 17, something that never bothered him until his final years, when he required oxygen 18 hours a day.
Arriving for a party celebrating his 80th birthday, he fainted and was treated by doctors and paramedics. The party continued, however, and he cracked, "Boy, did I make an entrance!" --- Associated Press writer Andrew Dalton contributed to this report.
http://www.local6.com/entertainment/16389426/detail.html
Comic Died Of Respiratory Complications
LOS ANGELES -- Dick Martin, the zany half of the comedy team whose "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" took television by storm in the 1960s, making stars of Goldie Hawn and Lily Tomlin and creating such national catch-phrases as "Sock it to me!" has died. He was 86.
Martin, who went on to become one of television's busiest directors after splitting with Dan Rowan in the late 1970s, died Saturday night of respiratory complications at a hospital in Santa Monica, family spokesman Barry Greenberg said.
"He had had some pretty severe respiratory problems for many years, and he had pretty much stopped breathing a week ago," Greenberg said.
Martin had lost the use of one of his lungs as a teenager, and needed supplemental oxygen for most of the day in his later years.
He was surrounded by family and friends when he died just after 6 p.m., Greenberg said.
"Laugh-in," which debuted in January 1968, was unlike any comedy-variety show before it. Rather than relying on a series of tightly scripted song-and-dance segments, it offered up a steady, almost stream-of-consciousness run of non-sequitur jokes, political satire and madhouse antics from a cast of talented young actors and comedians that also included Ruth Buzzi, Arte Johnson, Henry Gibson, Jo Anne Worley and announcer Gary Owens.
Presiding over it all were Rowan and Martin, the veteran nightclub comics whose standup banter put their own distinct spin on the show.
Like all straight men, Rowan provided the voice of reason, striving to correct his partner's absurdities. Martin, meanwhile, was full of bogus, often risque theories about life, which he appeared to hold with unwavering certainty.
Against this backdrop, audiences were taken from scene to scene by quick, sometimes psychedelic-looking visual cuts, where they might see Hawn, Worley and other women dancing in bathing suits with political slogans, or sometimes just nonsense, painted on their bodies. Other times, Gibson, clutching a flower, would recite nonsensical poetry or Johnson would impersonate a comical Nazi spy.
"Laugh-In" astounded audiences and critics alike. For two years the show topped the Nielsen ratings, and its catchphrases -- "Sock it to me," "You bet your sweet bippy" and "Look that up in your Funk and Wagnall's" -- were recited across the country.
Stars such as John Wayne and Kirk Douglas were delighted to make brief appearances, and even Richard Nixon, running for president in 1968, dropped in to shout a befuddled sounding, "Sock it to me!" His opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, was offered equal time but declined because his handlers thought it would appear undignified.
Rowan and Martin landed the show just as their comedy partnership was approaching its zenith and the nation's counterculture was expanding into the mainstream.
The two were both struggling actors when they met in 1952. Rowan had sold his interest in a used car dealership to take acting lessons, and Martin, who had written gags for TV shows and comedians, was tending bar in Los Angeles to pay the rent.
Rowan, hearing Martin was looking for a comedy partner, visited him at the bar, where he found him eating a banana.
"Why are you eating a banana?" he asked.
"If you've ever eaten here, you'd know what's with the banana," he replied, and a comedy team was born.
Although their early gigs in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley were often performed gratis, they donned tuxedos for them and put on an air of success.
"We were raw," Martin recalled years later, "but we looked good together and we were funny."
They gradually worked up to the top night spots in New York, Miami and Las Vegas and began to appear regularly on television.
In 1966, they provided the summer replacement for "The Dean Martin Show." Within two years, they were headlining their own show.
The novelty of "Laugh-In" diminished with each season, however, and as major players such as Hawn and Tomlin moved on to bigger careers, interest in the series faded.
After the show folded in 1973, Rowan and Martin capitalized on their fame with a series of high-paid engagements around the country. They parted amicably in 1977.
"Dan has diabetes, and his doctor advised him to cool it," Martin told The Associated Press at the time.
Rowan, a sailing enthusiast, spent his last years touring the canals of Europe on a houseboat. He died in 1987.
Martin moved onto the game-show circuit, but quickly tired of it. After he complained about the lack of challenges in his career, fellow comic Bob Newhart's agent suggested he take up directing.
He was reluctant at first, but after observing on "The Bob Newhart Show," he decided to try. He would recall later that it was "like being thrown into the deep end of the swimming pool and being told to sink or swim."
Soon he was one of the industry's busiest TV directors, working on numerous episodes of "Newhart" as well as such shows as "In the Heat of the Night," "Archie Bunker's Place" and "Family Ties."
Born into a middle-class family in Battle Creek, Mich., Martin had worked in a Ford auto assembly plant after high school.
After an early failed marriage, he was for years a confirmed bachelor. He finally settled down in middle age, marrying Dolly Read, a former bunny at the Playboy Club in London. Survivors include his wife and two sons, actor Richard Martin and Cary Martin.
At Martin's request there will be no funeral, Greenberg said.
Martin lost the use of his right lung when he was 17, something that never bothered him until his final years, when he required oxygen 18 hours a day.
Arriving for a party celebrating his 80th birthday, he fainted and was treated by doctors and paramedics. The party continued, however, and he cracked, "Boy, did I make an entrance!" --- Associated Press writer Andrew Dalton contributed to this report.
http://www.local6.com/entertainment/16389426/detail.html
my favorite bit had him unshaven in an undershirt, eating a ripe tomato barehanded, while harassing his wife
QUOTE (inyerface @ May 26 2008, 04:43 AM) 
...All humor aside though, it is easy to get so caught up in Recount that you forget you know how it ends.
Assuming I'd watch HBO propaganda anyway.
assuming you'd recognize propaganda
what do you think brought us Iraq?
what do you think brought us Iraq?
The most revealing moment in the new HBO movie Recount is the moment at the end when Al Gore tells Ron Klain that the fight is over and it's time to concede. Klain wants to fight on, but Gore overrules him, and Bush becomes president. There are a lot of Americans now, including former Bush supporters, who rue the day Gore yielded, but it is evident from the play-by-play in the film that the Republicans would have preyed upon a Gore presidency with the exact same vengeful, careless, aggressive sense of entitlement that they showed during the recount. If Gore had stuck it out, if the Supreme Court had been publicly shamed for its evident corruption, if the bullies had not gotten their way, then the Republicans would have obstructed the operation of Gore's administration and the nation would have been destroyed from the inside. As it happened, the Republicans got to take charge, and they promptly screwed up in every conceivable way, and so their maliciousness and absolute incompetence was revealed for all but the most obtuse of our citizenry to see. The Bush drug has been a terrible and nearly fatal dose, and we don't know how alive we will be afterwards, but at least it has shown how extensive and serious the disease of Republicanism was. Every Republican in Recount has since shamed and dishonored himself for all to see. It's clear that the recount was the Republicans' last hurrah.
Which is possibly why people like James Baker are said to be pleased with the film. It was a war they won, and even though they did so in unethical (rank partisanship on the Supreme Court) and illegal (Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris purging the voter rolls before the election) ways. Winning to them trumped every other consideration. It is also evident that they learned from their "victory" in Florida that bullying was the way to go, and so they attempted to use the same strategy and tactics in Iraq. The last eight years show that ethics, law, and human decency meant nothing to these Republicans. And their current pleasure in the depiction of their own rottenness shows that they have learned nothing.
I would like to be a fly on the wall in the room where John McCain is watching Recount. In the course of the next few months, knowing that bullying, cheating, and subverting the election might or might not work, he will have to make a choice. He can run an honorable campaign and lose or a dishonorable campaign that shames him. Does he watch Recount and see Warren Christopher as a "wimp" and James Baker as "tough"? Or does he watch Recount and feel the humiliation that every Republican should feel? He is the carrier of the Bush poison now. The sooner he recognizes it, the better off the nation will be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/...t_b_103548.html
Which is possibly why people like James Baker are said to be pleased with the film. It was a war they won, and even though they did so in unethical (rank partisanship on the Supreme Court) and illegal (Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris purging the voter rolls before the election) ways. Winning to them trumped every other consideration. It is also evident that they learned from their "victory" in Florida that bullying was the way to go, and so they attempted to use the same strategy and tactics in Iraq. The last eight years show that ethics, law, and human decency meant nothing to these Republicans. And their current pleasure in the depiction of their own rottenness shows that they have learned nothing.
I would like to be a fly on the wall in the room where John McCain is watching Recount. In the course of the next few months, knowing that bullying, cheating, and subverting the election might or might not work, he will have to make a choice. He can run an honorable campaign and lose or a dishonorable campaign that shames him. Does he watch Recount and see Warren Christopher as a "wimp" and James Baker as "tough"? Or does he watch Recount and feel the humiliation that every Republican should feel? He is the carrier of the Bush poison now. The sooner he recognizes it, the better off the nation will be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/...t_b_103548.html
QUOTE (inyerface @ May 26 2008, 09:32 PM)
I would like to be a fly on the wall in the room where John McCain is watching Recount.
Whatever would lead the writer to think that McCain will be watching Recount?
http://nickmcnulty.blogspot.com/2008/05/th...again-turn.html
The latest liberal wet dream has hit the broadband, in HBO's new made for cable movie "Recount". Like the foreign film, "Death of a President", depicting the ficticous murder of Geroge W. Bush, the James Brolin "The Reagans", Oliver Stone's upcoming "Bush", and other farcical works of liberal fantasy, "Recount" takes real world characters and events, refracts them through the liberal prism onto our flat screens, and inserts them into the political consciousness as settled law. This poor showing from HBO lowers settles my expectations for the upcoming "Generation Kill", reaffirming my belief that they do better depicting Roman Centurians, Mafia Bosses, Maryland Detectives, and Marky Mark's entourage than they do nationally prominent modern figures. The same could be said for Showtime with the 16th Century ruling class vs. the 20th Century American ruling class, must be a Hollywood thing.
I give "Recount" some credit, though certainly not much, as they do try to spread the star power if not entirely evenly, at least respectably, amongst the two sides. KeVin Spacey, Denis Leary, and Ed Begley Jr. star on Team Gore, while yeoman Bob Balaban, Tom "the Hardest Working Man in Hollywood" Wilkinson, and the perfectly cast Laura Dern populate the Bush camp. But once the story begins to unfold, it's all too clear who the protagonists are, and where the sympathies lie. I felt like Charlie Brown running up to the Hollywood fair-and-balanced political film Lucy was holding one more time, only to be none too surprised to see it yanked away at the last minute.
Yes, the evil Republicans scheme and connive to thwart the will of the people, while a bewildered and wide eyed Kevin Spacey watches Democracy snatched from the hands of people that probably meant to vote for Al Gore(according to the filmmakers)! In a moment of token fairness, the filmmakers actually show an African American in the Party of Lincoln during a moment of Bush rejoice, only to show two scenes later a complete pan of a rally of African Americans allegedly being disenfranchised. Later in the film we listen as Gore lawyers explain to us how the laws, as enforced, conspire to disenfranchise African Americans to the tune of 20,000. Emails allegedly from the Harris(portrayed as a vain, incompetent hag) office attempt to paint any disenfranchisement as being the result of Republican machinations, while all the pro-Gore recounters are shown as brilliant Jeffersonian crusaders who consider every(non-military) vote sacred.
Meanwhile, the attempt by Team Gore to throw out military votes is briefly depicted, in the Gore-apologist tone the rest of the movie is set, with an actor playing the earnest lawyer behind the motion. The liberals making(and watching) this movie shamelessly brush aside any suspicion of lawyers looking to drum up fraud amongst military votes while looking to legitimize votes with no candidate selected at all by illegal aliens or dementia-riddled elderly voters. Supporting evidence for this premise - like all in the movie - is in short supply, but innuendo and subtext is not. And of course, whenever a press conference is shown, or a prepared statement, it is on CNN.
There is a tease scene included midfilm, and smartly included in all commercials, where Kevin Spacey's character says to Leary's "I'm not even sure I like Al Gore", but there was never any period during my viewing lasting longer than 180 seconds wherein I wondered whether or not the filmmakers liked Al Gore. Of course, those of us familiar with Kevin Spacey know full well he likes Al Gore a lot, which is why he was picked to be the lead character in the movie about his "stolen election", just like James Brolin and Josh Brolin were picked to play Ronald Reagan and George Bush respectively because they each disliked those men. Hugo Chavez even counts Kevin Spacey amongst his friends of communism, and Spacey even went as far as admitting(on friendly territory) that this movie was pro-Democrat and anti-Bush by design. Would that some of that honesty had crept into HBO's advertising department.
Liberal morons, delivered into adulthood ignorance concerning 1950s communism, our founding fathers, the U.S. Constitution, basic grammar, Adolph Hitler, Ronald Reagan, and a slew of other topics by our public school and private university systems will find Recount to be an excellent, Michael Moore-like, George-Clooneyesque sermon to the choir. The rest of us will view it for what it really is, a bitter propaganda piece designed to rewrite the history books that Walter Chronkite and Edward Murrow used to be able to abridge unchallenged in real time. Back in those days, phrases such as "And that's the way it is" were like Obi Wan waving his hand and saying "These are not the facts you are looking for". Not any more, the information age has smoked the left out of the anchor chairs and scurrying for any vessel with which to deliver their propaganda to the masses.
With documentary evidence exonerating the political corpse of Joe McCarthy, proving that George Bush won Florida in 2000(even that right wing partisan paper the NY Times had to concede this fact after their own recounts), and showing that Reagan remains the most popular president since Lincoln, the "Dramamentary" will become increasingly popular amongst the left. This smear piece belongs on the shelf of any self-respecting far left loon beside "The Reagans", "Good Night, and Good Luck", "The Motorcycle Diaries", "Fahrenheit 9/11", "Winter Soldier", "Death of a President", and "An Inconvenient Truth". I think if you sign up for the Socialists Movie Club today, you can get all of them for 99 cents.
If nothing else, I found "Recount" good for a laugh at just how petty, bitter, and delusional a core group of the American left has become. And, for added entertainment, the Moonbat Moveon.org wing of the left has angered the party elders once again, throwing them under the bus as the incompetents in lieu of pinning blame for the loss where it rightfully belongs, on Albert Gore. Like Obama, Gore is a far left messiah, and his personage must remain politically chaste for future crusades against the gun-clinging religous hordes known as "the Conservative Majority", even if party operatives, grandmothers, campaign aids, and former first ladies need to be thrown under the bus to keep it so. Indeed, with his gowing national prominence hunting Manbearpig, and his acceptance by the unhinged New Left, the rehabilitation of the image of Albert Gore is definitely a DNC priority, one that cannot be pursued without the help of the Hollywood Caucus.
The latest liberal wet dream has hit the broadband, in HBO's new made for cable movie "Recount". Like the foreign film, "Death of a President", depicting the ficticous murder of Geroge W. Bush, the James Brolin "The Reagans", Oliver Stone's upcoming "Bush", and other farcical works of liberal fantasy, "Recount" takes real world characters and events, refracts them through the liberal prism onto our flat screens, and inserts them into the political consciousness as settled law. This poor showing from HBO lowers settles my expectations for the upcoming "Generation Kill", reaffirming my belief that they do better depicting Roman Centurians, Mafia Bosses, Maryland Detectives, and Marky Mark's entourage than they do nationally prominent modern figures. The same could be said for Showtime with the 16th Century ruling class vs. the 20th Century American ruling class, must be a Hollywood thing.
I give "Recount" some credit, though certainly not much, as they do try to spread the star power if not entirely evenly, at least respectably, amongst the two sides. KeVin Spacey, Denis Leary, and Ed Begley Jr. star on Team Gore, while yeoman Bob Balaban, Tom "the Hardest Working Man in Hollywood" Wilkinson, and the perfectly cast Laura Dern populate the Bush camp. But once the story begins to unfold, it's all too clear who the protagonists are, and where the sympathies lie. I felt like Charlie Brown running up to the Hollywood fair-and-balanced political film Lucy was holding one more time, only to be none too surprised to see it yanked away at the last minute.
Yes, the evil Republicans scheme and connive to thwart the will of the people, while a bewildered and wide eyed Kevin Spacey watches Democracy snatched from the hands of people that probably meant to vote for Al Gore(according to the filmmakers)! In a moment of token fairness, the filmmakers actually show an African American in the Party of Lincoln during a moment of Bush rejoice, only to show two scenes later a complete pan of a rally of African Americans allegedly being disenfranchised. Later in the film we listen as Gore lawyers explain to us how the laws, as enforced, conspire to disenfranchise African Americans to the tune of 20,000. Emails allegedly from the Harris(portrayed as a vain, incompetent hag) office attempt to paint any disenfranchisement as being the result of Republican machinations, while all the pro-Gore recounters are shown as brilliant Jeffersonian crusaders who consider every(non-military) vote sacred.
Meanwhile, the attempt by Team Gore to throw out military votes is briefly depicted, in the Gore-apologist tone the rest of the movie is set, with an actor playing the earnest lawyer behind the motion. The liberals making(and watching) this movie shamelessly brush aside any suspicion of lawyers looking to drum up fraud amongst military votes while looking to legitimize votes with no candidate selected at all by illegal aliens or dementia-riddled elderly voters. Supporting evidence for this premise - like all in the movie - is in short supply, but innuendo and subtext is not. And of course, whenever a press conference is shown, or a prepared statement, it is on CNN.
There is a tease scene included midfilm, and smartly included in all commercials, where Kevin Spacey's character says to Leary's "I'm not even sure I like Al Gore", but there was never any period during my viewing lasting longer than 180 seconds wherein I wondered whether or not the filmmakers liked Al Gore. Of course, those of us familiar with Kevin Spacey know full well he likes Al Gore a lot, which is why he was picked to be the lead character in the movie about his "stolen election", just like James Brolin and Josh Brolin were picked to play Ronald Reagan and George Bush respectively because they each disliked those men. Hugo Chavez even counts Kevin Spacey amongst his friends of communism, and Spacey even went as far as admitting(on friendly territory) that this movie was pro-Democrat and anti-Bush by design. Would that some of that honesty had crept into HBO's advertising department.
Liberal morons, delivered into adulthood ignorance concerning 1950s communism, our founding fathers, the U.S. Constitution, basic grammar, Adolph Hitler, Ronald Reagan, and a slew of other topics by our public school and private university systems will find Recount to be an excellent, Michael Moore-like, George-Clooneyesque sermon to the choir. The rest of us will view it for what it really is, a bitter propaganda piece designed to rewrite the history books that Walter Chronkite and Edward Murrow used to be able to abridge unchallenged in real time. Back in those days, phrases such as "And that's the way it is" were like Obi Wan waving his hand and saying "These are not the facts you are looking for". Not any more, the information age has smoked the left out of the anchor chairs and scurrying for any vessel with which to deliver their propaganda to the masses.
With documentary evidence exonerating the political corpse of Joe McCarthy, proving that George Bush won Florida in 2000(even that right wing partisan paper the NY Times had to concede this fact after their own recounts), and showing that Reagan remains the most popular president since Lincoln, the "Dramamentary" will become increasingly popular amongst the left. This smear piece belongs on the shelf of any self-respecting far left loon beside "The Reagans", "Good Night, and Good Luck", "The Motorcycle Diaries", "Fahrenheit 9/11", "Winter Soldier", "Death of a President", and "An Inconvenient Truth". I think if you sign up for the Socialists Movie Club today, you can get all of them for 99 cents.
If nothing else, I found "Recount" good for a laugh at just how petty, bitter, and delusional a core group of the American left has become. And, for added entertainment, the Moonbat Moveon.org wing of the left has angered the party elders once again, throwing them under the bus as the incompetents in lieu of pinning blame for the loss where it rightfully belongs, on Albert Gore. Like Obama, Gore is a far left messiah, and his personage must remain politically chaste for future crusades against the gun-clinging religous hordes known as "the Conservative Majority", even if party operatives, grandmothers, campaign aids, and former first ladies need to be thrown under the bus to keep it so. Indeed, with his gowing national prominence hunting Manbearpig, and his acceptance by the unhinged New Left, the rehabilitation of the image of Albert Gore is definitely a DNC priority, one that cannot be pursued without the help of the Hollywood Caucus.
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ May 26 2008, 10:00 PM)
Whatever would lead the writer to think that McCain will be watching Recount?
It wasn't all that bad. I kind of enjoyed the charactures and the "heroes".
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ May 26 2008, 10:11 PM)
It wasn't all that bad. I kind of enjoyed the charactures and the "heroes".
Well maybe I'll catch it at my friend's who has HBO.
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ May 26 2008, 10:24 PM)
Well maybe I'll catch it at my friend's who has HBO.
Katherine Harris is really way overdone, especially in the news announcements. Almost cartoonish. I liked it.
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ May 26 2008, 08:29 PM)
Katherine Harris is really way overdone, especially in the news announcements. Almost cartoonish. I liked it.
The Dem view of Repuslickans.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ May 26 2008, 10:32 PM)
The Dem view of Repuslickans.
I think so. She was overly made up, really animated, trying to be super hot, etc. I had the TV on and it came on and it actually grabbed my attention so much that I watched it through. I rarely do that.
I can't recall any political fiction I ever liked. They all end up being about the same.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ May 26 2008, 10:37 PM)
I can't recall any political fiction I ever liked. They all end up being about the same.
This one moves pretty fast and stimulates the memories of the whole drawn out deal putting it into a couple hours. I think most of it was factually accurate, just slanted a bit in it's view.
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ May 26 2008, 08:33 PM)
I think so. She was overly made up, really animated, trying to be super hot, etc. I had the TV on and it came on and it actually grabbed my attention so much that I watched it through. I rarely do that.
I've seen Laura naked, that'll have to do for now. At some point I'll have to get digital with the HBO, but for now I just have basic.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ May 26 2008, 10:40 PM)
I've seen Laura naked, that'll have to do for now. At some point I'll have to get digital with the HBO, but for now I just have basic.
Laura Bush?
Laura "Katherine Harris" Dern.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ May 26 2008, 10:46 PM)
Laura "Katherine Harris" Dern.
She's hot.
Katherine Harris, R-Florida, holds up a possum she purchased at the Wausau Possum Festival, Saturday, Aug. 5, 2006, in Wausau, Fla.
QUOTE (inyerface @ May 26 2008, 09:14 PM)
Katherine Harris, R-Florida, holds up a possum she purchased at the Wausau Possum Festival, Saturday, Aug. 5, 2006, in Wausau, Fla.
Fukker's gettin' ready for the soup bowl I'd bet! MMMMM! Possum soup!
QUOTE (patheticJT @ May 26 2008, 11:29 PM)
Didn't hear a lot of that back then.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2...b20080527.asp#7
Reminder: Bush Won in Florida Recounts
Conducted by the Media
With HBO's 'Recount' movie (which first aired Sunday and Monday night) sure to rekindle claims that Al Gore would have won if only the U.S. Supreme Court had not "stopped the counting," a reminder that both recounts conducted by major media outlets in 2001 determined George W. Bush would have won anyway. Two stars of the film have fueled the re-writing of history with actor Kevin Spacey, who plays Gore operative Ron Klain, charging that "the Bush people were trying to stop votes from being counted and the Gore people were just trying to get votes counted" while Laura Dern, who plays Katherine Harris, recalled that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling left her "devastated because there were uncounted votes." (See item #8 below)
The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, "Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed," by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election
Reminder: Bush Won in Florida Recounts
Conducted by the Media
With HBO's 'Recount' movie (which first aired Sunday and Monday night) sure to rekindle claims that Al Gore would have won if only the U.S. Supreme Court had not "stopped the counting," a reminder that both recounts conducted by major media outlets in 2001 determined George W. Bush would have won anyway. Two stars of the film have fueled the re-writing of history with actor Kevin Spacey, who plays Gore operative Ron Klain, charging that "the Bush people were trying to stop votes from being counted and the Gore people were just trying to get votes counted" while Laura Dern, who plays Katherine Harris, recalled that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling left her "devastated because there were uncounted votes." (See item #8 below)
The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, "Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed," by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election
Well I'll be dogged. 
QUOTE (inyerface @ May 26 2008, 09:14 PM)
Nice chest.
Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."
QUOTE
"If you strip away the partisan rancor over the 2000 election, you are left with the undeniable fact that a presidential candidate conceded the election to his opponent based on [results from] a second card that mysteriously appears, subtracts 16,022 votes, then just as mysteriously disappears."
QUOTE
officially, as we learned earlier, the explanation given publicly - and accepted without demur by the media - for the strange events in Volusia county is that there was simply a "faulty memory card".
The "faulty memory card" explanation is also included in a CBS News Network investigation into the Election 2000 debacle.
And it is here that we find a considerable amount of information about just how significant the Volusia County events were on election night.
The first thing we learn from CBS's investigation into the events of election night is that according to the Voter News Service (VNS) exit polls for Florida Al Gore should have won comfortably.
The "faulty memory card" explanation is also included in a CBS News Network investigation into the Election 2000 debacle.
And it is here that we find a considerable amount of information about just how significant the Volusia County events were on election night.
The first thing we learn from CBS's investigation into the events of election night is that according to the Voter News Service (VNS) exit polls for Florida Al Gore should have won comfortably.
It is not a trivial matter. Because that misinformation was created by one of the most bizarre, and still completely unexplained, journalistic events in modern times.
Here's what happened.
George Bush appeared to have won Florida, and therefore the presidency.
The law in Florida was actually quite simple and direct:
f(4) If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, ... the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure.
That is one of the simplest and most clearly written bits of legislation I've ever seen anywhere.
The Florida court thought so too and ordered a recount.
Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down.
Bush was left as the victor and became the president.
But, presumably, the whole world wanted to know who actually did get the most votes. It would make a great and important story. But getting the truth was too time consuming and expensive for any single news organization, so a consortium was formed. It consisted of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN.
It took almost a year and cost over a million dollars. And here are the headlines:
All the news organizations had the same information: Al Gore got more legal, countable votes than George Bush.
Here are the headlines:
The New York Times: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote."
The Wall Street Journal: "In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help."
Los Angeles Times: "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds."
The Washington Post: "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush"
CNN.com: "Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins."
The St. Petersburg Times: "Recount: Bush."
If you were still interested, after the headlines, and bothered to read the stories, it didn't get much better.
I read it in the New York Times. Frankly, I missed the key paragraph, until I saw it pointed out in an article by Gore Vidal. I subsequently went back and read all the stories.
The Times was the worst in terms of active misdirection.
They spent the first three paragraphs supporting the headline and they explicitly stated that Bush would have won even with a statewide recount.
Finally, in the fourth paragraph - if you got that far - was the statement quoted above:
"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin."
There it was. A very simple statement. Al Gore got more votes in Florida than George Bush.
It is also very well buried. It had arcania about chads on both sides of it. Even so, as if in a panic to make sure that nobody might think that it mattered that Al Gore got more votes than George Bush, the Times dismissed what the Consortium had spent a million dollars to find out: "While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes." Even though that would seem to be a fairly obvious interpretation of the law and it is what was found when someone actually did sit down and count the votes.
The rest of the story, another four paragraphs, detailed a variety of other possible recounts, all partial recounts - these counties, but not those counties - that the Gore lawyers or the Bush lawyers asked for at various times. Bush would have won all of those variations, he just didn't get the most votes in Florida.
Not that the all variations mattered much. The Florida court had ordered a state wide recount.
The news story spinners hung their hat on a technicality.
Florida law, as affirmed by the courts, says a vote most be counted if there is "a clear indication of the intent of the voter."
When the questions and lawsuits started, they were about undervotes.
An undervote is when a voter has tried to vote but for some reason the counting machines fail to accept it.
The most common cause, in Florida, which used a punch system, was that the punching device did not make a clear hole in the voting card. The piece of paper that was supposed to be knocked out, a chad, was hanging, or only broken on two corners, or merely dented.
While the machines couldn't discern the "intent of the voter," the human eye often could. So we had the spectacle, and the jokes, about "hanging chads," as the recounts began.
If only the undervotes were counted, by some standards of judging them, then Bush would have won.
But the consortium recount came across something else - overvotes.
An overvote is when someone punches in the name of the candidate, and then, just to make sure, writes their name on the ballot. The machines could only read that the ballots had been marked in two places and threw them out.
But a human being, who saw that the place to vote for Gore had been punched and then, that Gore's name had been written in, could easily determine the intent of the voter.
So the reporters for the consortium kept track of those too, and found out that Gore actually won.
Had the people inspecting the votes in the actual recount, also noticed overvotes, and would they have done something about them?
The answer appears to be yes.
Newsweek has uncovered hastily scribbled faxed notes written by Terry Lewis, the plain-speaking, mystery-novel writing state judge in charge of the Florida recount, ....
-- just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its order--Lewis was actively considering directing the counties to also count an even larger category of disputed ballots, the so-called "overvotes," which were rejected by the machines because they purportedly recorded more than one vote for president. ....
"Judge, if you would, segregate 'overvotes' as you describe and indicate in your final report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter," Lewis wrote in a note to Judge W. Wayne Woodard, chairman of the Charlotte County Canvassing Board on the afternoon of December 9, 2000. "I will rule on the issue for all counties, Thanks, Terry Lewis."
-- Newsweek, The Final Word? Michael Isikoff, 11/19/01
That leaves us with a big question.
The largest, most prestigious news organizations in the United States - pretty much in the world - discovered a great and exciting story - the wrong guy was president of the United States.
Also, that the Supreme Court of the United States had interfered in an election to frustrate the actual will of the voters. (Justice Scalia wants us to get over it.)
Why did they so distort the story with misleading headlines, by burying the lead, by blowing so much fog and confusion around it, that almost everybody who read or heard the story, walked away with the false impression that they had deliberately created?
Created so successfully that the NY Times TV show reviewer is repeating it as fact seven years later.
There is no hard, on the record answer to that.
None of the editors or publishers have come forward and said, "This is why we spun the story the way we did, even if it meant pissing away the million dollars we spent to get it."
Nobody has, and nobody can, sue them for gratuitous misinformation and malfeasance, and put them in the witness box under oath to get to the bottom of it.
There is only speculation.
The story is dated November 12, 2001, just two months after September 11, 2001. We can imagine that they universally felt it was not the time to announce a pretender was on the throne and that the system was rotten, right to the top.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14875
Here's what happened.
George Bush appeared to have won Florida, and therefore the presidency.
The law in Florida was actually quite simple and direct:
f(4) If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, ... the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure.
That is one of the simplest and most clearly written bits of legislation I've ever seen anywhere.
The Florida court thought so too and ordered a recount.
Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down.
Bush was left as the victor and became the president.
But, presumably, the whole world wanted to know who actually did get the most votes. It would make a great and important story. But getting the truth was too time consuming and expensive for any single news organization, so a consortium was formed. It consisted of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN.
It took almost a year and cost over a million dollars. And here are the headlines:
All the news organizations had the same information: Al Gore got more legal, countable votes than George Bush.
Here are the headlines:
The New York Times: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote."
The Wall Street Journal: "In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help."
Los Angeles Times: "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds."
The Washington Post: "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush"
CNN.com: "Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins."
The St. Petersburg Times: "Recount: Bush."
If you were still interested, after the headlines, and bothered to read the stories, it didn't get much better.
I read it in the New York Times. Frankly, I missed the key paragraph, until I saw it pointed out in an article by Gore Vidal. I subsequently went back and read all the stories.
The Times was the worst in terms of active misdirection.
They spent the first three paragraphs supporting the headline and they explicitly stated that Bush would have won even with a statewide recount.
Finally, in the fourth paragraph - if you got that far - was the statement quoted above:
"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin."
There it was. A very simple statement. Al Gore got more votes in Florida than George Bush.
It is also very well buried. It had arcania about chads on both sides of it. Even so, as if in a panic to make sure that nobody might think that it mattered that Al Gore got more votes than George Bush, the Times dismissed what the Consortium had spent a million dollars to find out: "While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes." Even though that would seem to be a fairly obvious interpretation of the law and it is what was found when someone actually did sit down and count the votes.
The rest of the story, another four paragraphs, detailed a variety of other possible recounts, all partial recounts - these counties, but not those counties - that the Gore lawyers or the Bush lawyers asked for at various times. Bush would have won all of those variations, he just didn't get the most votes in Florida.
Not that the all variations mattered much. The Florida court had ordered a state wide recount.
The news story spinners hung their hat on a technicality.
Florida law, as affirmed by the courts, says a vote most be counted if there is "a clear indication of the intent of the voter."
When the questions and lawsuits started, they were about undervotes.
An undervote is when a voter has tried to vote but for some reason the counting machines fail to accept it.
The most common cause, in Florida, which used a punch system, was that the punching device did not make a clear hole in the voting card. The piece of paper that was supposed to be knocked out, a chad, was hanging, or only broken on two corners, or merely dented.
While the machines couldn't discern the "intent of the voter," the human eye often could. So we had the spectacle, and the jokes, about "hanging chads," as the recounts began.
If only the undervotes were counted, by some standards of judging them, then Bush would have won.
But the consortium recount came across something else - overvotes.
An overvote is when someone punches in the name of the candidate, and then, just to make sure, writes their name on the ballot. The machines could only read that the ballots had been marked in two places and threw them out.
But a human being, who saw that the place to vote for Gore had been punched and then, that Gore's name had been written in, could easily determine the intent of the voter.
So the reporters for the consortium kept track of those too, and found out that Gore actually won.
Had the people inspecting the votes in the actual recount, also noticed overvotes, and would they have done something about them?
The answer appears to be yes.
Newsweek has uncovered hastily scribbled faxed notes written by Terry Lewis, the plain-speaking, mystery-novel writing state judge in charge of the Florida recount, ....
-- just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its order--Lewis was actively considering directing the counties to also count an even larger category of disputed ballots, the so-called "overvotes," which were rejected by the machines because they purportedly recorded more than one vote for president. ....
"Judge, if you would, segregate 'overvotes' as you describe and indicate in your final report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter," Lewis wrote in a note to Judge W. Wayne Woodard, chairman of the Charlotte County Canvassing Board on the afternoon of December 9, 2000. "I will rule on the issue for all counties, Thanks, Terry Lewis."
-- Newsweek, The Final Word? Michael Isikoff, 11/19/01
That leaves us with a big question.
The largest, most prestigious news organizations in the United States - pretty much in the world - discovered a great and exciting story - the wrong guy was president of the United States.
Also, that the Supreme Court of the United States had interfered in an election to frustrate the actual will of the voters. (Justice Scalia wants us to get over it.)
Why did they so distort the story with misleading headlines, by burying the lead, by blowing so much fog and confusion around it, that almost everybody who read or heard the story, walked away with the false impression that they had deliberately created?
Created so successfully that the NY Times TV show reviewer is repeating it as fact seven years later.
There is no hard, on the record answer to that.
None of the editors or publishers have come forward and said, "This is why we spun the story the way we did, even if it meant pissing away the million dollars we spent to get it."
Nobody has, and nobody can, sue them for gratuitous misinformation and malfeasance, and put them in the witness box under oath to get to the bottom of it.
There is only speculation.
The story is dated November 12, 2001, just two months after September 11, 2001. We can imagine that they universally felt it was not the time to announce a pretender was on the throne and that the system was rotten, right to the top.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14875
A cat that does your bidding? That's a good one.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ May 28 2008, 10:26 AM)
Simba looks like that when he gets his tummy rub.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...etrosexual.html
Sex and the City: But real men should avoid it like the plague
Sex and the City: But real men should avoid it like the plague
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ May 30 2008, 04:14 PM)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...etrosexual.html
Sex and the City: But real men should avoid it like the plague
Sex and the City: But real men should avoid it like the plague
I've never seen the t.v. show.
Edwards' supporters will probably show big at this flick.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.