Posted on 01/26/2002 9:02:00 PM PST by montag813
Did anyone see the disturbing (and quite unfunny) "TV Funhouse" segment on SNL this evening?
They were attempting (one supposes) to insult Pat Robertson, but succeeded only in ridiculing Christians and those who value life and the unborn.
They portrayed a fictional Robertson-sponsored cartoon, in which "embyonic cell" and "Ted Trimester" (1st-trimester fetus) characters were placed in a work environment, as if they were high-powered workers. The characters were unintelligable, yet the other adult characters responded as if those two were geniuses. Also interspersed were a "Mr Parkinson" man seeking to kill the fetuses for their stem cells, who, upon being shown Jesus' image by the the "cell" character, ripped up a homosexual porno magazine (the "Robertson" scharacter asserts that if someone has a disease like Parkinsons it must be because Jesus is punishing them for being gay) and gives up his gun.
The message was clear: it is absurd to suppose that life begins at conception, because it is absurd to suppose that fetuses could function in the workplace. Also the piece asserts that one would have to be an extremist, homophobic Christian to value the unborn or have a problem with harvesting fetuses for stem cells.
Christianity is mocked and absurdly portrayed throughout the piece, which received very few laughs from the audience (do they really expect it to be funny?)
My wife and I were shocked by this, and the more we thought about it, the more disturbed we became.
montag
Walken was side-splitting in his "Continental" sketches on SNL, with the camera representing a woman dashing toward his door, only to have him block its exit.
As for the B.O.C. sketch you referenced, maybe I had to be there.
You are almost correct. SNL was actually at its funniest shortly after Chase left, but then began a rather rapid descent when several others left for bigger and better things. SNL was at its very best when the "Not Ready for Primetime Players" consisted of:
Jane Curtin
Dan Ackroyd
Bill Murray
Lorraine Newman
John Belushi
Gilda Radner
Garrett Morris
I'll never forget the Weekend Update segments with Curtin and Ackroyd (their Point-Counterpoint was hysterical), the commentaries by Emily LaTella (Radner), and sports coverage by Manny "Baseball been berry-berry good to me" Mosa (Morris). Also, the Bad News Bees, the Samurai sketches, and other classics from Belushi were great.
When that ensemble broke up, SNL went straight into the toilet.
Do you always make assumptions based on nothing but the conjecture within your own imagination? Frequently, there is an opportunity to see the replies from others to the deleted posts (replies that obviously occurred before the post was deleted). From these replies it is usually quite apparent that the post was inflammatory, vulgar, racist, or otherwise offensive -- and not a well-articulated liberal argument that the conservatives couldn't handle.
The numerous examples of argument or debate that survive the moderators around here illustrate the absurdity of your stated assumption.
Ha, since I explained how I derived that opinion (from observation of posts before they were deleted) your own assumption is found wanting. Sweet. :-)
I guess that depends on how you define "bashing". For instance, if Tommy Dash-hole makes an ignorant statement claiming that the Bush tax-cut that was not even passed until the summer caused a recession that began in March, his comments will be posted here along with observations that he must be either a complete embecile for believing this claim or a liar who knows that he is lying but does so simply because he has no regard for the truth and he knows the liberal press will give him a free pass on it. Now, does your definition of "bashing" spread broadly enough that pointing out the lies from Dash-hole constitutes "bashing"?
.
.
.
.
...totally depraved sinners?
Somebody has said that e-mail (and forum postings) tend to be as free-wheeling as verbal talk. We say things on email that we would never type out on paper and mail to someone.
But your verbal overreactions will not be around for others to view years from now.
Something to think about.
It starts off with a split screen. On the left side of the screen is an empty patch of dirt and on the right side is an empty patch of dirt. On each side it shows a hand digging a small hole and planting a seed. Then the hand on the left digs up its seed, but on the right hand side of the screen it shows a baby being born and then shows all the fun times the child had throughout his lifetime (this hole time the left side of the screen continues to show the empty hole). It goes on to replace the image of the child with a fully grown plant and that's how it ends.
Voila. That's the commercial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.