Posted on 12/21/2011 5:13:07 AM PST by suspects
Lol! Im sure youre right. Thanks.
Merry Christmas, my FRiend!
It’s Uncle Billy’s fault!
>>I’ve raised criticism of this movie for its “hate the rich and powerful”<<
Potter was an evil man. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with being rich.
Perhaps.
However, the difference is that OWSies do not understand the concept of "community". They don't wish to contribute to a community, rather they expect to be provided for by the community.
So OWSies, being the leaches of society, would naturally cheer for a George Bailey. But there is no way that they could BE a George Bailey.
And if there ever was an "Its a Wonderful Life 2" and George Bailey became wealthy from his head for business, he would still be George Bailey.
Like you could get a fair review out of a Boston paper? I think the editor was desperate for page filler material and some young puke came up with this.
Kinda like the Occupy crowd?
This piece is not worth buttwipe.
The point is not that she is a librarian but that she never married because George was not there to marry. She had to take a job to support herself. Talk about missing the point.
The only thing I can add is another key message which I got out of the film:
True success is not measured by how much stuff you accumulate and how many people you can boss around, but whether or not the world is a better place for you having lived in it.
By that measure, George Bailey is a rousing success and Potter is a dismal failure.
Merry CHRISTmas to you too!
How responsible was George to trust his idiot Uncle billy with 8 big ones?
Once or twice fine but I’d no more watch it again than I’d re watch “The Wizard of Oz” or the one with the boy who wanted a b.b. gun for Christmas.
Bah humbug!
This movie bacame a Christmas classic because it’s owner failed to renew its copyright. As a result, TV stations could show it without paying a royalty - so it always got stuck in somewhere on the air every Christmas.
“No man is a failure who has friends.” - Clarence
: )
Be that as it may, that scene still draws boos from the library community. Had I been in charge, rather than giving her a prestigious profession, I would have made her a New Deal bureaucrat.
Michael Graham is allegedly a conservative. He has been an author of several books (”Redneck Nation: How the South Really Won the War”; “That’s No Angry Mob, That’s My Mom: Team Obama’s Assault on Tea-Party, Talk-Radio Americans”) and has been on radio stations like WMAL in Washington D.C. (got thrown off after CAIR complained).
I can’t take his raspy, fast talking voice. He has been at
WTKK (-FM) Boston for several years. Recently when the controversial Jay Severin was fired by WTKK— then hired
by WXKS (AM) for the 3-7 pm slot, WTKK suddenly decided that maybe putting Graham in the same slot would make
sense. (That is, they would rather have a political talk
host opposite their former employee Severin and WRKO’s
Howie Carr, himself also a Herald columnist, instead of
the lukewarm host they’d put in the afternoon drive slot.)
Graham got divorced from his wife Jennifer (”the Warden”); for a time,
her website had a family picture—with Michael airbrushed out. He’s since been re-married.
From Wikipedia:
>>In July 2005, Graham used Islam and terrorism as the basis for a multi-day discussion on his WMAL talk radio show. A number of Graham’s comments prompted over one hundred complaints to the station and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued action alerts to its subscribers encouraging them to contact WMAL to urge that “Graham be reprimanded for his anti-Islam statements”, ultimately prompting WMAL to suspend him. After 28 days, WMAL elected to terminate Graham stating that he violated station policy and disregarded “management direction” to redress the situation. The situation prompted angry editorials [columns?] from Graham as well as appearances on nationally televised news programs to discuss the firing.
Strange way of looking at the movie.
The character George puts others before himself, not as a matter of political ideology, but as matter of Christian morals. He does the right thing by his family, because he sees them as his responsibility. He keeps his mother, younger brother, and uncle from being wards of the state.
Yes he sees the Savings and Loan as an altruistic venture, but it is still not a handout, just a niche market with less return. Given that he has renovated a large worn down house, has clothed and fed a large family, and isn’t in debt are not signs that he is in poverty. Far from it.
He is not much different than every farmer I’ve ever met, who prefers doing a job they love and value over a job that pays more money.
And the ending is based on voluntary charity based on strong character.
This is NOT an Occupy feel good movie.
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.