Woody Allen shows how stupid he really is...

[posty]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...llen-obama.html

 

Top political strategist Woody Allen thinks Obama would get much more done as dictator; No, really

 

The notorious and formerly funny movie director Woody Allen is apparently frustrated with the cumbersome operations of American democracy too.

 

The one-time-father-now-husband-of-his-daughter tells the Spanish-language magazine La Vanguardia that the United States' Democratic Smoker-in-Chief could accomplish a whole lot more from his White House if he didn't have so many disorderly, annoying people objecting, distracting and criticizing him all the time.

 

Such social messiness has been known to occur in functioning democracies, even cinematic ones, although less often on celebrity-strewn movie sets under the direction of a dictatorial director.

 

"It would be good...if (Obama) could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly," Allen is quoted as saying.

 

Allen is also said to have said:

 

I am pleased with Obama. I think he is brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.

 

With healthcare and the economy now fully fixed, no doubt one area in urgent need of sweeping Obama-style reforms would be targeting movie reviewers who write negatively about Hollywood. Or about its politician favorites.

[Azazello1313]

the other thing I've seen his name connected with lately is going to bat for child-rapist roman polanski. yeah, woody, I'm sure that character witness is really compelling coming from a guy who married his adopted stepdaughter.

[bpwallace49]

Woody Allen is a crackpot . .

[SEC=UGA]

Was that from "The Onion", please tell me you got that from "The Onion".

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

While I dislike woody allen, mostly because of his fervent support of a rapist, but also because of his own abusive relationships towards his children, I am really shocked by this 'article'. I don't really understand how major newspapers are navigating the blogosphere. Is this 'article' vetted by the LA times, or are they just linking to stuff they find interesting? Other than characterizing Obama as the smoker in chief, and Woody Allen as The one-time-father-now-husband-of-his-daughter this article offers only two points that

1. Woody Allen wishes that Obama could act as a dictator

2. Woody Allen wishes that republicans would stop spending so much time trying to politically hurt Obama, and let him do the countries business for which he was elected. And Obama is brilliant

 

Everything else is invective, and sarcasm

 

While point 1 is over the top hyperbole, seeing how the article is so incredibly slanted, I would definitely like to see a context to it. Bush, if you recall, formulated that exact same thought about his own presidency. While it is a pretty simple thought (wouldn't it be cool if we could get everything we wanted?) it's not like he was advocating dictatorship.

And I agree with point 2. I would like the republicans to get out of the way, and stop spending so much time trying to hurt Obama. I also wish I had a million dollars, and that my penis were a bit longer. Conversly, if you are a republican, you hope that your party can stop Obama from implementing his program. It's pretty straight forward politics. Some people think he is brilliant, you may agree or disagree with that, but it's not completely out of left field either.

 

As I say, the only thing I find really shocking in this story is the LA Times.

[SEC=UGA]

While I dislike woody allen, mostly because of his fervent support of a rapist, but also because of his own abusive relationships towards his children, I am really shocked by this 'article'. I don't really understand how major newspapers are navigating the blogosphere. Is this 'article' vetted by the LA times, or are they just linking to stuff they find interesting? Other than characterizing Obama as the smoker in chief, and Woody Allen as The one-time-father-now-husband-of-his-daughter this article offers only two points that

1. Woody Allen wishes that Obama could act as a dictator

2. Woody Allen wishes that republicans would stop spending so much time trying to politically hurt Obama, and let him do the countries business for which he was elected. And Obama is brilliant

 

Everything else is invective, and sarcasm

 

While point 1 is over the top hyperbole, seeing how the article is so incredibly slanted, I would definitely like to see a context to it. Bush, if you recall, formulated that exact same thought about his own presidency. While it is a pretty simple thought (wouldn't it be cool if we could get everything we wanted?) it's not like he was advocating dictatorship.

And I agree with point 2. I would like the republicans to get out of the way, and stop spending so much time trying to hurt Obama. I also wish I had a million dollars, and that my penis were a bit longer. Conversly, if you are a republican, you hope that your party can stop Obama from implementing his program. It's pretty straight forward politics. Some people think he is brilliant, you may agree or disagree with that, but it's not completely out of left field either.

 

As I say, the only thing I find really shocking in this story is the LA Times.

 

I agree with what you are saying here, but there was so much invective and vitriol thrown around by the dems during the last admin, I fell that, unfortunately, the repubs are dishing it back. THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO VOT E ALL OF THE FING INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE AND TAKE BACK THE CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY!!!

[Azazello1313]

As I say, the only thing I find really shocking in this story is the LA Times.

 

that figures I guess it's just tough to believe when anyone connected with a major newspaper expresses any attidue toward obama other than the one shared by woody allen.

[bpwallace49]

that figures I guess it's just tough to believe when anyone connected with a major newspaper expresses any attidue toward obama other than the one shared by woody allen.

 

Not at all . . . it is just stupid to refer to Obama as the "smoker-in-chief". All that does is create drama and discount the message. What could possibly be accomplished by using that? What goal does that serve?

 

Just stupid hyper -partisanship . . . . business as usual by irresponsible bloggers.

[TimC]

Is this like when Bushwacked volunteered to be Obama's dictastor?

[westvirginia]

Is this like when Bushwacked volunteered to be Obama's dictastor?

 

That was skins. bushwacked wanted to be his browneye girl...

[bushwacked]

That was skins. bushwacked wanted to be his browneye girl...

 

 

You're confusing me and Obama with you and Ayn Rand with a strap-on.

Edited May 18, 2010 by bushwacked

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

that figures I guess it's just tough to believe when anyone connected with a major newspaper expresses any attidue toward obama other than the one shared by woody allen.

 

No, it's tough to beleive that a major newspaper would either 1. completely disregard one of the major definition of journalism

: writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation

or 2. would associate itself with an Opinion comment that has all the depth of pull-my-finger. and 3. printed something that seemed to be written by a high school student.

 

I don't find it hard to beleive that Krauthammer is published in the DailyNews or that Kristol is in the NY Times, and in fact welcome it.

Can you honestly read that 'article' and not come away saying to yourself, 'that is some really weak sauce'?

[Azazello1313]

I don't find it hard to beleive that Krauthammer is published in the DailyNews or that Kristol is in the NY Times, and in fact welcome it.

Can you honestly read that 'article' and not come away saying to yourself, 'that is some really weak sauce'?

 

umm, that is my reaction when I read commentary in the NY times more often than not. I mean, you are talking about a paper that gives maureen f*cking dowd a weekly column. and somehow you're "shocked" at some dude referring to obama as "smoker-in-chief"?

[westvirginia]

Just checking, but it's still OK to refer to Geithner as the tax-cheat in chief, right?

[Savage Beatings]

I love that he thinks that Republicans are trying to hurt Obama.

 

That's defintiely the reason for trying to stop the socialization of health care in our country. Not because it's a suck ass idea, but because it will hurty Obama. Precious!

[rattsass]

Dear Woody,

 

Your social input was rendered null and void the minute you stuck your tongue down your daughter's throat.

 

Douchbag.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

umm, that is my reaction when I read commentary in the NY times more often than not. I mean, you are talking about a paper that gives maureen f*cking dowd a weekly column. and somehow you're "shocked" at some dude referring to obama as "smoker-in-chief"?

 

I'm also shocked that Maureen Dowd has a column in the NY Times.

Thats woman is a total moran.

And I will agree with you that her thought process is about as developed as this moran's.

But remember someone posted the Woody Allen article as if it were somehow either news, or an insightful opinion, whereas it is neither.

All I could see was the paucity of what passes for news in the LA Times.

If you want to talk about the NY Times, fine. My point was the LA Times and the stupidity of this 'article', and what passes for journalism.

BTW you never answered my question, is this weak sauce or not?

[Azazello1313]

If you want to talk about the NY Times, fine. My point was the LA Times and the stupidity of this 'article', and what passes for journalism.

BTW you never answered my question, is this weak sauce or not?

 

hey you're the one that brought up the ny times. and who says this is "passing for journalism" any more than someone like dowd is? it's a comment on a sponsored blog, which if anything, implies even more editorializing than a typical op-ed piece. it's only journalism in the sense that it is reporting something woody said in an interview (which appears to be accurate), it obviously isn't even trying to be as far as tone or how it is presented.

 

as far as my opinion....well, I would say it's not very incisive polemic, so it's weak in that sense. but do I find it "shocking" that someone is editorializing in such a way in a *gasp* blog sponsored by a major newspaper? cracka, please. I guess it serves as a nice distraction, though.

[millerx]

Dear Woody,

 

Your social input was rendered null and void the minute you stuck your tongue down your daughter's throat.

 

Douchbag.

+1

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

hey you're the one that brought up the ny times. and who says this is "passing for journalism" any more than someone like dowd is? it's a comment on a sponsored blog, which if anything, implies even more editorializing than a typical op-ed piece. it's only journalism in the sense that it is reporting something woody said in an interview (which appears to be accurate), it obviously isn't even trying to be as far as tone or how it is presented.

 

as far as my opinion....well, I would say it's not very incisive polemic, so it's weak in that sense. but do I find it "shocking" that someone is editorializing in such a way in a *gasp* blog sponsored by a major newspaper? cracka, please. I guess it serves as a nice distraction, though.

 

Hunh?

I brought up the NY Times to point out that newspapers priting op-eds that were right leaning was not unusual in the least and that I welcomed it, as a response to your insinuation that I was outraged that a newspaper would dare print something that was not adhering to the leftist aganda. Could have picked any publication.

My main point was to question newspapers relationships to sponsered blogs. Are they veted? Obviously it was not trying to be fair, which is OK if you are writing an editorial, but if that is the case, you should have a point. Which this doesn't. I am still shocked that major newspapers are entering, and assocating with the bloggosphere willy-nilly with so little oversight or quality control (I have a friend who has a blog over at a San Fransisco Newpspaper that is both stupid, and full of typos, and it mystifies the heck out of me).

Once again whoever originaly posted this as thehuddle did so, as if this were somehow a valid news story. Which in my mind it is not.

If you want to make this about Maureen Dowd, fine. She is a moran, and I am SHOCKED that she has a column in the NY Times.

[bushwacked]

Someone should write a blog everytime Charles Heston or Ted Nugent says something stupid. I think that would be really important.

[tosberg34]

Someone should write a blog everytime Charles Heston or Ted Nugent says something stupid. I think that would be really important.

 

If you're waiting for Charlton Heston to say something stupid you'll be waiting a really, really long time since he died 2 years ago, you DAMN, DIRTY LIBERAL!

Edited May 19, 2010 by tosberg34

[rattsass]

If you're waiting for Charlton Heston to say something stupid you'll be waiting a really, really long time since he died 2 years ago, you DAMN, DIRTY LIBERAL!

That line right there was funnier than anything comrade Woody has ever done. I rarely laugh out loud but...

[Azazello1313]

Hunh?

I brought up the NY Times to point out that newspapers priting op-eds that were right leaning was not unusual in the least and that I welcomed it, as a response to your insinuation that I was outraged that a newspaper would dare print something that was not adhering to the leftist aganda. Could have picked any publication.

My main point was to question newspapers relationships to sponsered blogs. Are they veted? Obviously it was not trying to be fair, which is OK if you are writing an editorial, but if that is the case, you should have a point. Which this doesn't. I am still shocked that major newspapers are entering, and assocating with the bloggosphere willy-nilly with so little oversight or quality control (I have a friend who has a blog over at a San Fransisco Newpspaper that is both stupid, and full of typos, and it mystifies the heck out of me).

Once again whoever originaly posted this as thehuddle did so, as if this were somehow a valid news story. Which in my mind it is not.

If you want to make this about Maureen Dowd, fine. She is a moran, and I am SHOCKED that she has a column in the NY Times.

 

I'm not sure I get your point. I mean, have you never seen a blog before? because that is pretty typically what you get...a snippet of news, framed by some opinionated editorializing. sometimes that editorializing is penetrating and insightful, sometimes (like this) much less so. personally, people being opinionated on a blog or an op-ed page doesn't bother me in the least -- that is what they are supposed to be. I have much more of a problem with bias in "straight" news, which puts itself forward as being neutral and objective. but if that neutrality and objectivity is what you are expecting from a blog, regardless of who sponsors it, I think you are missing the point.