Author Topic: Foxnews.com slideshow (Read 5618 times)

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #15 on:** November 11, 2009, 01:34:10 PM »

Game shows and politics don't mix. Otherwise the Bill Cullen-Monty Hall collaboration "The Choice Is Yours" would have sold.

TLEberle · « **Reply #16 on:** November 12, 2009, 01:34:55 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'230369\' date=\'Nov 11 2009, 04:44 AM\']And Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity et al use "liberal" in a similarly derisive way. It doesn't make the definition any less accurate, or any more difficult to understand. Not liking the usage is one thing. Claiming that it's irrelevant because nobody knows what it means is something else.[/quote]But I'm not talking about the bobbleheads who make a living by saying whatever will move the Nielsen meter. I'm talking about people I've interacted with who use "neocon" as that language shortcut that I mentioned before.

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'230377\' date=\'Nov 11 2009, 08:40 AM\']In Travis's defense, linking to Wikipedia was probably a poor decision on my part since the Wiki folks are going to have such an incredible hard-on over NPOV in an article like that so as to make the content pretty much worthless.[/quote]And the thing is that the Wiki definition doesn't seem that horrible: a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

That doesn't sound entirely horrible. And that doesn't seem to be the way that I've seen the term "neocon" used. Ever.

I get that there are people who disagree with conservative principles. I encountered hundreds of them throughout college. And if you don't like conservatives on a personal level, well, I can't control that any more than I could flap my arms and get to the moon. But there's a difference between "I disagree (sharply, even!) with your political views" and "he's just a neocon bastard."

clemon79 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 12, 2009, 03:49:39 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'230435\' date=\'Nov 11 2009, 10:34 PM\']And the thing is that the Wiki definition doesn't seem that horrible:[/quote]
Precisely my point: in their ridiculous effort to be NPOV and at the same time politically correct with regard to a term that is at its base neither, they've missed it completely.

You don't have to like that the literal definition of the word has changed, but the fact is, when someone refers to a "neocon" today, most reasonable people get the image of the right-wing whackjobs like Hannity and Limbaugh and Beck and much of the previous administration. That's how it is.

comicus · « **Reply #18 on:** November 12, 2009, 07:42:42 AM »

David Zinkin always told me that he considered "neo-con" to be a libelous synonym for "filthy Jew." So it's more of a slur than one might imagine, at least in the eyes of some.

/not a neo-con
//anymore
///and really shouldn't be discussing politics on a game show board

clemon79 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 12, 2009, 11:34:44 AM »

[quote name=\'comicus\' post=\'230442\' date=\'Nov 12 2009, 04:42 AM\']David Zinkin always told me that he considered "neo-con" to be a libelous synonym for "filthy Jew."[/quote]
David had a lot of strange opinions, including some with regard to anti-Semitism.

And, again, while it might have had that meaning at one time, the meaning as understood today has been usurped. I'm pretty sure "O'Reilly" and "Hannity" aren't Jewish names.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #20 on:** November 12, 2009, 11:54:14 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'230385\' date=\'Nov 11 2009, 01:10 PM\']Would Bill Cullen have been considered a celebrity before Winner Take All?[/quote]
Onr of the prizes in my collection, something not even Fred Wostbrock has, is a full-page Variety ad taken out by Bill's management team announcing his move to television with Winner Take All. By 1952, he was an established radio host with half a dozen games to his credit, not to mention a dozen or more shows for which he was an announcer.

All going to show that yes, by and large, the whole idea of the list is kinda silly, but what else is new? Plus their definition of "star" could use a little bit of work. Seinfeld and Ferris Bueller character work notwithstanding, to whatever degree John O'Hurley and Ben Stein have become household names, they probably have their game shows to thank. I also have a hard time thinkng of people like Sweetin and Ribeiro as "stars" when their only significant credit is as a supporting child actor in a sitcom. Put it this way, how weird is a list like this which includes Jodie Sweetin and doesn't include Bob Saget?

Lists of famous people who "went game show" certainly aren't new. Back in the day, such a list would include folks like Milton Berle, Jackie Gleason, Groucho Marx and the like. Heck, even Betty White would qualify. But those people were stars. "Carlton" wasn't.

TLEberle · « **Reply #21 on:** November 12, 2009, 12:16:57 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'230455\' date=\'Nov 12 2009, 08:54 AM\']Lists of famous people who "went game show"[/quote]You make it sound so...dirty.