it all started to change when Americans rebelled against biblical morality in the 60's and 70's. Before that, we had Christian values and a Christian culture


The 50s were an aberration, not the norm for all time before the horrible 60s. This is a ridiculous untruth propagated by people who grew up in the 50s and who, in the US, are bitter about losing a cultural war. Much of the reason the 50s were so explicitly religious was because of government intervention - explicit religion was seen as a counter to communism. Other than that, it was a generational effect, you can see the cycle through history. In terms of overall morality, I'll take now - a time without slavery, less crime, and much more protection for the bullied in general - over pretty much any point in history.

I mean, there were certainly positives to the 1950s if you were a middle-to-upper-class white male but it really sucked for most other people.

As to now, the biggest immoral behavior I see the US doing right now is slaughtering people overseas. I'm waiting for the time when warmongering candidates can't get support in Tennessee because of all the Christians. Oh wait, it's not warmongering they hate, it's "differing slightly on religious views".

who do you think is running all of those food banks and homeless shelters?


And who is fighting hardest against universal healthcare, foodstamps, and progressive taxation? Most people (of any kind) are good and want to help the underprivileged; mostly they just differ on how to administer that aid.

For instance, arkansas is one of the most charitible states, whose citizens give around 3.9 percent of their income


According to this - http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/most-charitable-states-cx_lh_1125home_ls.html - the #1 state is Utah. Hmmm... I wonder why? Maybe it's because they're browbeaten by their church into donating? Too bad they're not Christians, eh Shiny, or you could take credit for them. On the whole, I think it's ridiculous to count donations to a Church as wholly charitable for this purpose. A donation to a church is partially going to support charitable stuff, but largely is going to support building a church, heating it, maintaining it, advertising it, supplying it, and paying people who work there (the same as a donation to Applebee's).

It's simply another anti-christian vehicle that atheists will all nod their head and agree with without any thoughtful analysis.


Speaking for myself, I made it about 10 seconds in before it annoyed me too much to keep watching. Annoying voice, cliche, stupid non-jokes.

>> ^probie:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^probie:
I never got into Frasier. Frasier Crane was my favorite character on Cheers and the Frasier on Frasier was not the Frasier on Cheers.

As a fan of both Cheers and Frasier, I'm going to need you to elaborate on that one.

Sure. Cheers was very much a comedy of the classes; Frasier and Lilith typifying the upper class, white collar intellectuals. With Fraiser (the show), they got rid of the class element and focused more on the family dynamic between him, his brother, the father and the other characters. On Cheers, Fraiser was more akin to Il Dottore; professional, collected, pompous, arrogant at times...only Lilith was able to put him in his place. On Fraiser, because he was now the central character, he played foil to the rest of the supporting cast. While Grammar is still playing the same character, it's not the same Frasier (to me at least).


I'd say that Martin and Roz, to a lesser extent, were the foils to Frasier and Niles. Was Frasier the exact same character he was on Cheers? No, he evolved, which is fairly typical of most sitcoms -- just look at Homer Simpsons in the early seasons of The Simpsons, or Michael Scott in The Office. I'm not sure if you gave Frasier more than a few episodes, but I really think you should give it a chance -- it's (IMO) one of the rare spin-offs that's just as good as the show that spawned it (save for the last couple of seasons).

Look, go back and re-read all your anti-Raid, anti-action arguments in that thread, and tell me that it was really a huge leap on my part to assume you were one of those pretentious hipster types who hangs out around art house theatres and looks his nose down on any movie that was made for more than a few million bucks. You're not, okay, but it wasn't much of a leap, is what I'm saying.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
Careful, probie. Sarz might accuse you of wanting all TV shows to be about class warfare.>> ^probie:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^probie:
I never got into Frasier. Frasier Crane was my favorite character on Cheers and the Frasier on Frasier was not the Frasier on Cheers.

As a fan of both Cheers and Frasier, I'm going to need you to elaborate on that one.

Sure. Cheers was very much a comedy of the classes; Frasier and Lilith typifying the upper class, white collar intellectuals. With Fraiser (the show), they got rid of the class element and focused more on the family dynamic between him, his brother, the father and the other characters. On Cheers, Fraiser was more akin to Il Dottore; professional, collected, pompous, arrogant at times...only Lilith was able to put him in his place. On Fraiser, because he was now the central character, he played foil to the rest of the supporting cast. While Grammar is still playing the same character, it's not the same Frasier (to me at least).

Careful, probie. Sarz might accuse you of wanting all TV shows to be about class warfare.>> ^probie:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^probie:
I never got into Frasier. Frasier Crane was my favorite character on Cheers and the Frasier on Frasier was not the Frasier on Cheers.

As a fan of both Cheers and Frasier, I'm going to need you to elaborate on that one.

Sure. Cheers was very much a comedy of the classes; Frasier and Lilith typifying the upper class, white collar intellectuals. With Fraiser (the show), they got rid of the class element and focused more on the family dynamic between him, his brother, the father and the other characters. On Cheers, Fraiser was more akin to Il Dottore; professional, collected, pompous, arrogant at times...only Lilith was able to put him in his place. On Fraiser, because he was now the central character, he played foil to the rest of the supporting cast. While Grammar is still playing the same character, it's not the same Frasier (to me at least).

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^probie:
I never got into Frasier. Frasier Crane was my favorite character on Cheers and the Frasier on Frasier was not the Frasier on Cheers.

As a fan of both Cheers and Frasier, I'm going to need you to elaborate on that one.


Sure. Cheers was very much a comedy of the classes; Frasier and Lilith typifying the upper class, white collar intellectuals. With Fraiser (the show), they got rid of the class element and focused more on the family dynamic between him, his brother, the father and the other characters. On Cheers, Fraiser was more akin to Il Dottore; professional, collected, pompous, arrogant at times...only Lilith was able to put him in his place. On Fraiser, because he was now the central character, he played foil to the rest of the supporting cast. While Grammar is still playing the same character, it's not the same Frasier (to me at least).

Had to stop at "if you go back to 2008 before the recession". Really? What crazy universe were you in that the recession hadn't hit by 2008? The rest of us working class were well aware shit was hitting the fan way before that. Mostly thanks to your precious upper class rich douchebags.

>> ^westy:

>> ^shuac:
Did we expect another reaction from a Frenchman?

Its weird how French have this reputation I think it comes from the pre–Revolutionary French upper class but can not really be applied to the French as a whole.

Although its fun discrimination and the most successful discriminatory terms seem to take one element of truth and then apply it to a whole nationality/race of people.
I know the surrender aspect of WW2 comes into it but I don't think France had much choice and it would have cost them more life to not surrender , Its also well documented how well the French held back the Germans with resistance groups which is a far harder and riskier form of fighting than standard troop combat / full front engagements ( from the perspective of an individual solder anyway).
Also the French have many totally mental people that needlessly risk there lives lol I mean they originated allot of parkur , and crazy types of skying.
Still I agree its amusing to poke fun at people even if its unfounded
BTW , Brits have bad teeth , amercans are all fat , germans are all rocket scientists , asains are all amazing at math and paino playing, australians eat cangaroo all day and chase crocodiles , russians all drink vodcah 24/7.


There's no getting around the fact that, in a situation where it comes down to standing up for what you believe in to the death or giving up, giving up is always going to be seen as the "coward's way out", and that's why it's stuck to them.

It doesn't matter if it's the best option, or the only option, or anything else. It's jingoism, linked to war, of course things like that are seen through the overly masculine eyes of "i'd rather die than submit."

This is why france has a bad rep, because of the world war. And i notice that a lot of people who i first heard say that are in the age range of being impressionable during or just after the war. But more recently i believe the country most associated with surrender is the italians but don't ask me why, i don't subscribe to it.

But if it wasn't that, it'd be something else.

>> ^shuac:

Did we expect another reaction from a Frenchman?


Its weird how French have this reputation I think it comes from the pre–Revolutionary French upper class but can not really be applied to the French as a whole.



Although its fun discrimination and the most successful discriminatory terms seem to take one element of truth and then apply it to a whole nationality/race of people.

I know the surrender aspect of WW2 comes into it but I don't think France had much choice and it would have cost them more life to not surrender , Its also well documented how well the French held back the Germans with resistance groups which is a far harder and riskier form of fighting than standard troop combat / full front engagements ( from the perspective of an individual solder anyway).

Also the French have many totally mental people that needlessly risk there lives lol I mean they originated allot of parkur , and crazy types of skying.

Still I agree its amusing to poke fun at people even if its unfounded

BTW , Brits have bad teeth , amercans are all fat , germans are all rocket scientists , asains are all amazing at math and paino playing, australians eat cangaroo all day and chase crocodiles , russians all drink vodcah 24/7.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^Deano:
Actually I think it's a decent English accent, though I'd be stumped as to what part of the country it pertained to.

I'd call it BBC English? Sounds upper class, probably owns property out in the country.


Yeah, middle-England I guess, reasonably posh.

>> ^Deano:

Actually I think it's a decent English accent, though I'd be stumped as to what part of the country it pertained to.

I'd call it BBC English? Sounds upper class, probably owns property out in the country.

Seriously, just what the hell is this guy talking about? Is this his audition tape for "Upper Class Twit of the Year"?

Nostalgic Drunk Upper Class Lady should be a new meme.

Nothing!

I actually thought the same thing. Cenk was totally like Bill O'Reilly but in this case Cenk is speaking truth something O'Reilly has a delusions of. Let's hope Cenk doesn't get carried away with it. Being reasonable / logical does not need to consist of aggressive veneer.

I understand where Schiff is coming from. He is absolutely delusional, upper-class filth. Off with their heads!

>> ^artician:

I wish he would have let Schiff explain more. Even if he was wrong, I certainly couldn't tell because Cenk just kept bowling over him with his insistence to make his point.
Cenk very much took a page from the O'Reilly interview handbook this time.

>> ^ponceleon:

I don't get the title... what does this have to do with the upper class? Did I miss something?


I don't get it either. Please to be explaining.

I don't get the title... what does this have to do with the upper class? Did I miss something?