26
   

Recommend good HBO series?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 05:33 am
@izzythepush,
I don't know what you're on about, but none of that alters that Prime Ministers take office after having been elected by at most a few thousand people in a single electoral distict. I said nothing to suggest that any of you don't know what's going on. I'm just pointing the laughable absurdity of ranting on about the Electoral College given that situation. The fifteen American presidents who qualify as minority presidents nevertheless received millions of votes. What prime minister ever took office having received the votes of a millions of the electorate? I'm not saying it's a bad system, it's just different. I am saying that ranting about the Electoral College and decrying it as undemocratic is rather idiotic, coming from anyone whose government is chosen as are those of the Westminster system.

American presidential candiates don't take months off to decide who they will appoint to executive offices. That's as much a part of the election campaign here.

Arguments from ignorance.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 05:40 am
@Setanta,
There is a gap between being elected, President Elect, and being sworn in. That's when most of the cabinet positions are sorted out isn't it?

As the vote is for the party as much as the individual MP, Cameron can claim that all Tory votes, with a few odd exceptions, are votes for him to be prime minister.

The main exception to this is the speaker. His appointment tends to be on his record as a parliamentarian, he tends to be less of a partisan figure. That means when he fights in his constituency he, as tradition dictates, is unopposed by all the major political parties.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 06:04 am
@izzythepush,
In answer to your first question--no. For at least some positions such as Secretary of State, Attorney General, Secretary of the Treasury, candidates are expected to find prospective office holders even before the election takes place. It is thought that a candidate can enhance their elective profile in that manner.

Cameron can claim what he will--he received the votes of those in his riding who wanted to vote for him, and nothing more. I can vote for Mr. Obama, and vote for Republicans or independents for any other office on the ballot--i'm voting for the candidate, not the party. I am simply pointing out how ludicrous it is to compare the two very different systems and decry one or the other as "undemocratic."
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 07:46 am
@izzythepush,
I would be really happy if this thread could remain about good TV, if possible. please.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 07:55 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
As i've alreay pointed out, this is neither an inferior or a superior system, it's just a different system.

I like less restricted systems better, and I suspect so do dlowan and others in this thread. Since I didn't say anything about "superior" or "inferior" in any objective sense, I'm going to leave it at that.

Setanta wrote:
It may well be that "permissiveness" is greater in Gemany. But so what?

So Germany is a natural experiment by which we can gage the pressure of advertisers against swearing, in a setting where such pressure would make a difference. No difference is observable between private channels, who get all of their revenue from advertising, and public channels, who get a little of their revenue from advertising. We can therefore conclude that advertisers' pressure against profanity is negligible. That's the only reason I brought up Germany.

Setanta wrote:
My overall complaint, though, is the constant niggling drum beat of criticisms, all of which seem to be predicated on a condescending attitude toward these differences.

Complain away. Personally, though, I find nothing condescending about saying things like "the US healthcare system sucks compared to Canada's", or "German coffee sucks compared to Italian coffee"---or "US TV censorship sucks compared to Australia's, Britain's, and Germany's". Indeed I would be surprised if you had never made comparisons of this type between the countries you've traveled and lived in.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:00 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
I would be really happy if this thread could remain about good TV, if possible. please.

Oops---sorry, I'll stop now, then.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 08:05 am
@Thomas,
I'll drop the subject, too, but only after observing that "inhibited" and "censored" are pejorative terms in this context, and are not applicable because there are television offerings in the United States which are neithe inhibited nor censored. I find your scenario of Germany as a test case to be hilarious. If one makes the comparisons of which you speak, one would realize that German standards and tastes are not applicable in the United States.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 10:26 am
@Thomas,

Quote:
Shameless is a Showtime comedy series about a poor family in Chicago.


And a remake of the original British version which is set in a housing estate (project) in Manchester.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 10:27 am
@McTag,
I didn't know that, thanks!
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 10:37 am
@Thomas,

YOU'RE WELCOME. whoops cap lock. I gave the link, above.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 10:50 am
@McTag,
Actually, the bit about the housing project is a good example of what I don't like about the American Shameless. The Gallaghers in Chicago do not live in a project. Although they are poor, they live in a nice, spacious, four-bedroom house. It's just a little messy because the Gallaghers can't keep it in order. To be sure, there are railroad tracks down the block, and this must diminish the home's value some. But then this can't be too bad, see, because you never hear the trains from inside the Gallagher's home. The series has many little inauthenticities like this piling up. Together, they prevent me from fully enjoying the characters and their adventures.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2012 10:55 am
@Thomas,

What prevents me from enjoying the British series is the antics of the low-lifes, especially Frank, who makes me squirm.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 01:20 am
@McTag,
I'm needing more recommendations....preferably newish shows.

I'll not sneer at old ones, though.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 02:42 am
@dlowan,
New series: Girls (HBO, season 1) Naive, 20-year-old, upper-middle-class girls grow up in New York City, dealing with boyfriends and stuff. Funny, clever, though without enough guts and blood for my taste. (None, actually.)

New seasons of old series: Broadwalk Empire (HBO, season 3), Web Therapy (Showtime, season 2), Homeland (Showtime, Season 2)
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 03:23 am
@Thomas,
Heard about girls....not sure if I can get it yet.

Web Therapy? Tell me more.

We have the series that Homeland is a copy of starting soon...Israeli, I think.
mckenzie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 04:19 pm
@dlowan,
"Web Therapy" stars Lisa Kudrow. About the series, quote:

"Fiona Wallice is a therapist with little patience for her patients. Tired of hearing about people's problems for fifty long minutes, she devises a new treatment, the three-minute video chat. And still, the sessions end up being largely about her. If she's your therapist, you've got problems. Emmy Award winner Lisa Kudrow co-created, produces and stars in this outrageous therapeutic send-up. Originally produced as webisodes, 'Web Therapy' features an A-list guest cast who, along with Kudrow, improvise their performances with hilarious results."

I watched season 1 with Mr. M. He was so-so about it. I found it very funny. We've PVRed the second season but haven't got around to watching it. Meryl Streep and Rosie O'Donnell are a couple of the guest stars on season 2. I think it may have been renewed for season 3.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 04:38 pm
@mckenzie,
Thank you Mac! good to see you.
mckenzie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 04:55 pm
@mckenzie,
Any and all seasons of Sons of Anarchy on FX.

Seasons 1 and 2 of American Horror Story, titled American Horror Story: Murder House and American Horror Story: Asylum, respectively, also on FX

Seasons 1 - 3 of Justified, on FX.

Looking forward to a new season of Man Men and awaiting the second half of the last season of Breaking Bad, on AMC.

The Walking Dead, seasons 1 - 3, on AMC.

Finishing watching season 1 of Homeland on DVD. You're right, dlowan, it is based on an Israeli series. I didn't think I'd care for it but I've thoroughly been enjoying the first season.
0 Replies
 
mckenzie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 04:58 pm
@dlowan,
Good to see you, too. Hope you and the kitties are enjoying the holidays and the warm weather (-20 C here right now, brrrrrr).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2012 12:09 am
@mckenzie,
Yep. What McKenzie said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
What TV shows do you watch? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 06:45:39