|
|
| |
Topic: Ignore Lena Dunham´s ´Girls´ at Your Own Peril, Conservatives |
Ignore Lena Dunham´s ´Girls´ at Your Own Peril, Conservatives
Breitbart´s Big Hollywood, by Kurt Schlichter
|
|
Original Article
|
|
Posted By:Dreadnought, 1/29/2013 9:36:27 PM
|
| There’s plenty about Girls to annoy conservatives, yet this often creepy, usually skeevy, critically-acclaimed HBO series is also a test for conservatives. Will we finally heed Andrew Breitbart´s warnings about the importance of taking pop culture seriously or just keep fiddling as the culture burns? If conservatives are going to be in the popular culture – and act to change it – they can’t simply ignore shows like Girls that capture the zeitgeist, even if the zeitgeist makes their skin crawl. Season two is well under way, and conservatives need to participate
|
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Wetlandz, 1/29/2013 9:40:27 PM (No. 9147403)
Didn´t know this slob until the stupid "first time" video, won´t watch it, it´s definitely no girl though.
|
Reply 2 - Posted by:
noproblems, 1/29/2013 9:43:47 PM (No. 9147408)
what we (tea party types) need to do is do our version of burning man. show the world that we can have a good time but without the over the top decadence (just a little decadence).
|
| |
|
Reply 3 - Posted by:
AltaD, 1/29/2013 10:21:42 PM (No. 9147477)
No, I don´t need to watch ´Girls´ or any other liberal trash just so I can "related" to liberals. I can find a common ground with the lefties I know by discussing sports, kids, schools, taxes, you name it. Just because the in-crowd in Hollywood says this show is good or important doesn´t make it so - just check its ratings vs. The Big Bang Theory or even The Mentalist.
|
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bob913, 1/29/2013 10:31:35 PM (No. 9147501)
Lena could be in a biker bar at 2am and would still end up going home alone.
|
Reply 5 - Posted by:
NYbob, 1/29/2013 11:33:07 PM (No. 9147578)
Yeah, the desperation of the homely girls who try and boost their low level of attraction by being outrageous, crude and aggressive, is new. Humanity hasn´t seen this old act until a cable network created this stupid show. Oh, hurry and curry the favor of that demographic.
How about instead of pandering to low information morons and losing to the party that invents new ways to pander, confront the fools. Engage this loser and force her and her ilk to defend the absurd.
|
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Aunt Agnes, 1/29/2013 11:47:53 PM (No. 9147595)
Lena is the kind of "girl" who is a two at 10 and a 10 at two.
|
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Timber Queen, 1/30/2013 12:01:09 AM (No. 9147610)
We keep being told that conservatives have to participate in the culture. Ok, how? I´m not going to watch this carp or support it with my entertainment dollars. Conservative movies consistently make more money than progressive hogwash, yet impact on the culture rot appears minimal. I´m not a Hollywood producer, director, or writer. Just exactly what does "participate" in the culture mean?
|
| |
|
Reply 8 - Posted by:
lil dotty, 1/30/2013 12:07:57 AM (No. 9147620)
Never seen the show. Never will see the show, much less participate Ignore is about the best I can do.
|
Reply 9 - Posted by:
bluefindad, 1/30/2013 12:34:44 AM (No. 9147650)
So, in order to communicate with the ´hook-up´ crowd, do I have to actively participate to prove I´m cool, and can then talk to others about how drained and empty it makes me feel?
Sorry, we are at the point of the roller coaster ride where we´re past the apex and the brakes are off.
If you think girls are crude and going feral, it is nothing compared to what is coming. Every cultural barrier is crumbling. Women in combat strikes down one of the West´s longest standing distinctions - that women are to be protected and valued. No more, say the ´girls´ generation. Women are crude and venal. And, they are capable of giving and receiving violence.
This culture is like an alcoholic in a downward spiral, seeking the lesson-learned bottom. We can only pray that the bottom will be shallow, for the sake of our daughters.
|
Reply 10 - Posted by:
3rdjerseyman, 1/30/2013 2:17:17 AM (No. 9147709)
I wouldn´t copulate with her using your organ.
|
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Charactercounts, 1/30/2013 2:57:26 AM (No. 9147719)
#9, agree with you. Just look at the way girls look (tattoos, piercings), speak and behave. Then they wonder why young men don´t respect them.
I won´t watch the show precisely because of what it is. I work to make sure my children, and the other young people in my orbit, know how vapid, shallow and evil shows like "Girls" are. We actually had a family discussion over the holidays, with the older generation telling the younger that you don´t lower yourself to watching crap just because everyone else is watching it.
|
Reply 12 - Posted by:
tulipwood, 1/30/2013 5:06:45 AM (No. 9147758)
I´d rather go down fighting. They´ll go down rotting.
|
| |
|
Reply 13 - Posted by:
45_Auto, 1/30/2013 6:29:15 AM (No. 9147803)
I´d have to get a TV if I was going to watch this show.
|
Reply 14 - Posted by:
NuGoddess, 1/30/2013 8:02:50 AM (No. 9147953)
I believe Mr Schlihter´s premise is: how can one intelligently critique a program such as Girls without having seen it? Not that one needs to watch each and every episode but in order to make the conservative point in discussions, one needs to be familiar with the subject matter. I would rather walk on hot coals instead of watch something like Sex In The City but it is nigh on impossible to discuss such pop culture aspects without a basic knowledge of the subject.
You would not be able to teach history without understanding the subject; the same goes for educating brain-dead liberals about Girls.
|
Reply 15 - Posted by:
MOBeef4u, 1/30/2013 8:27:52 AM (No. 9148001)
I´m always suspicious when a show is described as "critically acclaimed". It´s usually a way of saying few people are actually watching it. With so many channels to choose from, a show needs a relatively small audience to stay on the air. Recently read the "30 Rock" was the most talked about show that nobody was watching. Never higher than about 64th in the ratings. Also don´t forget that "Girls" is the show where Brian Williams watches his daughter´s nude sex scenes. Creepy and disgusting beyond words.
|
Reply 16 - Posted by:
mominNoCA, 1/30/2013 8:59:33 AM (No. 9148082)
Sorry, I´d rather ignore it. I can´t picture my children or even my liberal family members watching this slop.
|
Reply 17 - Posted by:
rockymtnhigh, 1/30/2013 11:30:16 AM (No. 9148516)
This show seems to be popular with the younger crowd, those who are constantly lamenting their student loan debt. Isn´t HBO considered a premium cable channel that costs extra for subscription. Maybe pass on HBO and keep up those loan payments.
|
| |
|
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Supercollider, 1/30/2013 12:01:56 PM (No. 9148586)
You don´t have to lay down in pig feces to know that it stinks, or comment intelligently about the filth and it´s hazards to your health.
|
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
|
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
|
Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions
|
|
Washington Post, by Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/21/2013 11:03:01 PM
Post Reply
|
|
The controversy over the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack last year began at a meeting over coffee on Capitol Hill three days after the assault. It was at this informal session with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the ranking Democrat asked David H. Petraeus, who was CIA director at the time, to ensure that committee members did not inadvertently disclose classified information when talking to the news media about the attack. “We had some new members on the committee, and we knew the press would be very aggressive on this, so we didn’t want
|
With more clarity, White House adds to confusion on IRS
|
|
Washington Post, by Dan Balz
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/21/2013 10:59:54 PM
Post Reply
|
|
It is never good for an administration when a front-page newspaper article about an ongoing controversy begins as follows: “The White House offered a new account Monday of how and when it learned .?.?. ” That’s what readers of The Post awoke to on Tuesday. In trying to contain the controversy and protect President Obama, White House officials have only added to questions about what happened. Until this week, the story of how White House officials learned that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting conservative groups was fairly straightforward. White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler was notified in late April
|
In AP, Rosen investigations, government makes criminals of reporters
|
|
Washington Post, by Dana Milbank
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/21/2013 10:56:21 PM
Post Reply
|
|
There are various reasons you might not care about the Obama administration’s spying on journalist James Rosen and labeling him a “co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor” in an espionage case. Liberals may not be particularly bothered because the targeted journalist works for Fox News. Conservatives may not be concerned because of their antipathy toward the news media generally. And the general public certainly doesn’t have much patience for journalists’ whining. But here’s why you should care — and why this case, along with the administration’s broad snooping into Associated Press phone records, is more serious than the other supposed
|
| |
|
|
White House meltdown: A truth deficit
|
|
Washington Post, by Jennifer Rubin
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/21/2013 10:53:11 PM
Post Reply
|
|
There seems to be bipartisan consensus that whatever the White House is doing to fend off scandal is making things worse. Howard Fineman sounds a lot like Right Turn these days: “White House aides are tempting fate with their reluctant, piecemeal and contradictory disclosures of what they knew and when they knew it, especially about a report on the Internal Revenue Service’s 18-month effort to target tea party and other conservative groups for special scrutiny.” The constantly shifting stories from Jay Carney and the IRS dissembling and pleas of ignorance only heighten concern that there has been serious wrongdoing.
|
|
A Crack in the IRS Dam
|
|
Power Line, by John Hinderaker
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/21/2013 10:50:44 PM
Post Reply
|
|
The dam protecting the IRS scandal began to crack today when Lois Lerner, the IRS official who announced, and apologized for, the improper singling out of conservative-leaning organizations by IRS employees under her command, announced through her criminal defense lawyer that she will not testify as scheduled tomorrow before the House Oversight Committee. Rather, she will assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This marks an enormous milestone in the IRS investigation. It can now be taken as more or less established that crimes were committed by Obama administration employees. Lerner’s lawyer tried to minimize the significance
|
|
‘Rosen’s in the Wind!’
|
|
National Review Online, by Jonah Goldberg
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/21/2013 9:29:36 PM
Post Reply
|
|
John Podhoretz has a good column today on the Obama administration’s travails. I did not know this bit until I read the column: Even more startling, the search warrant makes clear that the FBI already had everything it needed on the leaker, as the request for a search warrant features quotes from an interview that were tantamount to a confession. It asked that the warrant be sealed — in other words, that Rosen not be told — because knowledge might “cause subjects to flee”! Imagine it: Rosen, an on-air reporter
|
All of Obama´s Scandals Are Ultimately About Information Control
|
|
National Review Online, by Jim Geraghty
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/21/2013 9:26:54 PM
Post Reply
|
|
There’s really no reason for the press to suggest that the recent slew of scandals involving the Obama administration — Benghazi, the AP phone-record seizure, the snooping in James Rosen’s e-mail, the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and so on — are a confusing jumble. There is a very clear thread running through all of the administration’s actions: The U.S. deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, says that he was told not to speak to a member of Congress about Benghazi without a State Department lawyer present, that he received a phone call from Hillary Clinton’s
|
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
|
White House Chief of Staff knew about damaging IRS audit, kept Obama in the dark
|
|
New York Post, by S.A. MILLER
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: FlyRight- 5/20/2013 4:15:03 PM
Post Reply
|
|
WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Serviced scandal today spread further within the White House and closer to President Obama. White House spokesman Jay Carney today disclosed that Obama’s chief of staff, Dennis McDonough, and other top White House officials had advance warning that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. But he insisted McDonough and the other White House officials purposely kept Obama out of the loop.McDonough “rightly chose not to take action” to inform Obama, Carney told reporters at the daily White House briefing.
|
BREAKING: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News
|
|
Newsbusters, by Tim Graham
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: drive- 5/20/2013 7:29:20 AM
Post Reply
|
|
The Washington Post on Monday reported that Obama’s Department of Justice was investigating journalists before they started wiretapping the Associated Press – for one, Fox News correspondent James Rosen in 2010. Their headline wasn´t "Obama Team Also Spied on Fox News." Fox wasn´t in the headline, on A-1 or on A-12, where the story continued. Newly obtained court documents “reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist — and raise the question of how often journalists have been investigated as closely as Rosen was in 2010.” Reporter Ann Marimow began:
|
Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment
|
|
Los Angeles Times, by Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Scottyboy- 5/21/2013 3:53:35 PM
Post Reply
|
|
WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups. Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.
|
Leaks turn to deluge for reeling White House
|
|
New York Post, by John Podhoretz
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: StormCnter- 5/21/2013 4:49:13 AM
Post Reply
|
|
The wheels came off the Obama administration yesterday. We learned of a startling assault on freedom of the press by the Department of Justice, following the revelation last week of the unprecedented information-gathering foray by that department against The Associated Press. Then, a few minutes later, the Justice Department’s inspector general released a report declaring that the US attorney in Arizona used the leak of a confidential memo to try to discredit a whistleblower in the notorious “gun-walking” scandal known as Fast and Furious (which got two federal agents killed). The leak was called “egregious.”
|
White House Aide calls Criticism of Obama ´Offensive´
|
|
New York Times, by Brian Knowlton
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: FlyRight- 5/20/2013 7:01:33 AM
Post Reply
|
|
A senior adviser to President Obama mounted a combative defense of the administration on Sunday, saying the controversies enveloping the White House were the result of Republican lawmakers’ trying to “drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped-up hearings and false allegations.”The remarks came from Dan Pfeiffer, a member of the president’s inner circle, as he appeared on all five major Sunday morning talk shows in an effort to move the administration past what commentators have described as a “hell week” of controversy and missteps.
|
If Your Doctor Asks You About Guns, Do You Have to Answer?
|
|
Fox News, by Staff
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/20/2013 1:12:07 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Stuart Varney said this morning on "Varney & Co." that one of his producers was given a questionnaire with some surprisingly intrusive questions on it when he switched doctors. One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured weapons in the home. Another asked whether he/she was "in a relationship in which you have been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?" Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare. Varney expressed amazement
|
Democratic Senator uses Okla. tornado for anti-GOP rant over global warming
|
|
Daily Caller, by Jeff Poor
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: bamapreacher- 5/20/2013 8:20:54 PM
Post Reply
|
|
While many Americans were tuned into news coverage of the massive damage from tornadoes ravaging the state of Oklahoma, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor to rail against his Republican colleagues for denying the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Whitehouse spent 15 minutes chastising GOP senators and justified his remarks by alluding to states that seek federal assistance in the wake of natural disasters. “So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care
|
| | |
|
|