Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The Wedding Planner

One of the IMDB reviewers summed it up perfectly… “the chick flick from hell”.

The Wedding Planner

Impressed with the use of DL.

My college puts out a Faculty reference guide every year, so that community and media can find an expert from the University on whatever timely topic they want to report on and need an expert opinion. Apparently she was listed in a similar reference at her university, as being specifically a native american minority. It sounds like I would have as much claim to this as she (as would probably half of us on this forum), and I’d be embarrassed if I were listed as such.

Back to politics… A Cherokee Nation official says Sen. Elizabeth Warren “is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” While I still consider her actions bizarrely disingenuous, I also have to admit that the right’s actions obstructing native American vote is substantively worse.

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

Which vote of yours did she lose?

Assuming she runs for president, that one.

So the primary? Or the general?

I am hopeful that the dems will come up with some decent alternatives, so I was thinking of the primary. As for the general - if it’s her versus the Donald, then I guess I’d have to admit that I’d have to vote for her. But wouldn’t it be nice if the dems could find someone that people didn’t have to reluctantly vote for - as was the case for many people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

We can only vote for the choices we are given. Forget Trump, would you really vote for someone like Paul Ryan over her?

Hmm, you’re not making this easy. Time might temper my views. We’ll see what plays out going forwards, and whether this is an isolated thing. At this moment I find it embarrassing and wrong.

Not that they are necessarily related, but in Rachel Dolezal’s case, it appears to have been a part of a much larger pattern of fraudulent behaviors.

On the flip side, there was a famous singer for Duke Ellington named Herb Jeffries who was white, but passed as black and claimed to be one-half black. He even accepted movie roles in westerns as the “bronze buckaroo”. I played in a backup band for him in one festival about 25 years ago - really nice guy, and later in life he admitted that he was 100% white.

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

Which vote of yours did she lose?

Assuming she runs for president, that one.

So the primary? Or the general?

I am hopeful that the dems will come up with some decent alternatives, so I was thinking of the primary. As for the general - if it’s her versus the Donald, then I guess I’d have to admit that I’d have to vote for her. But wouldn’t it be nice if the dems could find someone that people didn’t have to reluctantly vote for - as was the case for many people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

To follow-up… I can certainly understand someone deciding it’s no big deal (Warren’s questionable claims of NA heritage). But I REALLY don’t understand certain media outlets heralding that these latest DNA results prove that she was right, because they most certainly do not. Quite the contrary.

I hate left-leaning fake stuff even worse than right-leaning fake stuff, because I would like to think that the left holds itself to a higher standard.

moviefreakedmind said:
Personally I think it’s embarrassing to not vote for one of the few anti-corruption Democrats over something this pointless and irrelevant.

I don’t consider it irrelevant. Right now, the Republicans are systematically removing many native Americans from being able to vote. Identifying protected classes, collecting data, securing funding, and then helping those who have been disadvantaged by their demographic is a hallmark of democratic ideals, and takes decades of effort. Warren has made a mockery of it, or at least minimized it and made it a target, by her actions.

I suspect that this whole thing started some time when she was very young. Growing up, my grandmother used to tell me that her grandmother was a squaw named “Hawk”. I thought that was kinda cool (plus my dad and I were in the “Indian Guides”), so I could imagine some 8th grader filling out a demographic questionnaire for the first time, and deciding to be proud of such a “heritage”, and marking the bubble for “native american”. In her case, it seems to have taken on a life of its own. Maybe at some point she got some perk from it? I don’t know, but if she were to become a candidate, the right will make her AND such programs a laughing stock over it. Or, worse yet, that this is an example of the broader democrat hypocrisy and lies.

A long time ago she should have said ok, I did that when I was younger, sorry, and dropped it before it became a thing. She could have even used these test results to say sorry, I was mistaken. That she apparently can’t, is not a great personal trait. But then again, maybe it is… the Donald insists that “deny, deny” is the best strategy, and it seems to work for him.

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

Which vote of yours did she lose?

Assuming she runs for president, that one.

Although I’m a very liberal democrat who generally supports Warren’s views, I find her ongoing claim of having Native American heritage to be an embarrassment at best, and outright fraud at worst. Six-to-ten generations back? Give me a break! Nearly everyone who has ancestors in North America can make that claim WITH substantiation from Ancestry.com. It sounds like she has LESS N.A. blood than the average American. She needs to drop it and apologize. Efforts towards equal opportunity are severely damaged when people - especially those for whom they were not intended - lie and abuse them.

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

moviefreakedmind said:
I’m paranoid. I wouldn’t be surprised if some douchebag sitting next to me decided to throw a punch at me in honor of the flag.

Especially since Trump has already said he would pay the legal fees for people using violence towards such aims.

Mrebo said:
To answer Frank seriously, if a long-established show returned to the air with committed Christian showrunners and they announced the star character was going to convert to Christianity, I bet you many people would be offended by the pereceived Christian agenda.

That is a terrible analogy. Being Christian is a philosophical choice. Being a female isn’t. Thus, having the doctor convert to Christianity would mean the show was making a social statement, by associating the wise sage with Christianity. By contrast, for decades many Who fans have mused whether it might be fun/interesting if the doctor were a woman. Totally different scenario.

Other examples (similar to the doctor being a woman) would be if the doctor were: black, Asian, overweight, blind, some other non-humanoid species, etc.

Other examples (like yours) would be if the doctor were: Democrat, Republican, Nazi, Jewish, Pastaferian, etc.

See the difference? That’s why screaming “feminist agenda!” every time someone brings up something good about a woman gets tiresome after a while. It ascribes philosophical choice to something that is a simple biological trait for half of the human population.

I too was expecting some sort of reaction. That fan-made series with the woman doctor by Rian Johnson had a nice reaction, where she is saying “something’s not right”, then catches sight of her reflection in a window while walking down the street… “Oh no! it’s all wrong!”

Yep, that whole River Song arc was one of the lugubrious quagmires.

Jay said:
It’s only Trump’s delivery that makes him different.

Really?!

I suppose my statement only applies to relatively well-meaning people. An intelligent person could presumably choose to vote for Trump even if they believe that Trump is a harmful idiot, if he/she thought that regardless of that, Trump’s presence would result in a personal benefit to themself.

In theory, if someone is saying idiotic things, the best defense is to just let the person spew their rubbish for everyone to see. For some reason, that approach doesn’t seem to be work against Trump. I acknowledge that it is possible that there is something fundamentally wrong with my brain, and in actuality he and his minions are correct and I just can’t see it.

I don’t see the objection to USAT including both. Running the president’s claims is simply reporting what an important, powerful figure is doing. Given their usual conservative slant (although not crazy-ass, like Fox), I’m actually impressed that they ran such a substantive rebuttal.

After reading Trump’s claims, I’m even more amazed anyone would vote for him. It should be totally laughable to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. But a lot of Americans love him. We’re doomed… and not just by Trump. If Americans would elect Trump for president, imagine who/what else they’ll be voting for in the years to come.

Actually I meant “gooey”. An intended metaphor for some sort of overly-complicated, lugubrious quagmire in which the stories get bogged down.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I for one am very glad to see a complete reboot.

A compete reboot? I haven’t heard that is what they were doing. I am pretty sure the rest of the continuity still counts. I for one would not want to see over 50 years of Dr. Who thrown into the trash.

Sorry for being unclear – I guess I meant partial reboot. The series was getting gooey.

I for one am very glad to see a complete reboot. And I hope they can stick with this current approach… very refreshing!

Glad you enjoyed it Warbler. Did you notice any feminist agenda messages you were fearing the show would be laden with?

Hehe, in the old series, stories would be spread over several weeks.

Actually, I thought that Capaldi’s final season included a few excellent episodes.