quartermainefan

I was wondering exactly how long Erica's New York period lasted. Was her only PV interaction with Mona? What made this end? Was it the story with Adam? Did they end because they'd run out of ideas, or was it a ratings thing?

New York lasted quite a long time because remember, Jenny had to go on the run in NY, and then had to embark on a modeling career up until the year she died, 1984? Erica was in NY all that time. Brandon Kingsley and Sensuelle were in NY, but so were the Bogardes much later, and there are even clips online from when Jane Elliot was on the show at the NY hot spot "Nexus".

I was just rewatching some of this special. This was a nice reunion show.

<iframe width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JIZrrJUlz14" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sc8RRAB9v5U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No Max, you stay I will go. I enjoy talking to you but if I make you feel uncomfortable then I will go and you stay. My opinions of modern republlcans stem from watching them campaign against gay people, the poor, their attempts to tell us what to read and who to sleep with, what women should do with their bodies, and the lies they tell as they pocket more and more money. But that's me and this thread should be for everyone, so you stay and my opinion on these people has already been stated.

wow watching this again I forgot just how entertaining this was. No irony or hip smugness, and I love the music and light effects. I know this is heresy in these parts, but I would sooner watch crap like this than any of Claire Labine's junk. This is way more entertaining than watching people being perpetually diagnosed with maladies as they narrate their every feeling and thought for the camera.

Wasn't Starman a good 5 years earlier? I wonder if any of Casey is online...

It seemed McTavish was tempted to return to sci fi for a while with the defrosting of that character, etc, but...

I assume the entire story is on this YT channel

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3ldDhFUaLSQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X2Vxyyl-ucI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Good! I know it was kind of "out there", but I enjoyed it. I enjoy most anything Robin. I've always had a soft-spot for her.

Casey was a solid little story. It made sense, it had heart and sentiment, good guys and bad guys..it had everything a story needed. I liked that GH tried a little science fiction (it was after STARMAN came out, so I guess they were jumping in on the sci fi action), and it is to GH's discredit that they have not tried anything all these years since. Especially when LOST was popular and the watercooler show of the country, how could not a single soap jump on the mystery/science fiction train and do something different? They all adhere and cling to the same tired formula that was tired and run into the ground 10 years ago or more.

Another media darling tells us that Social Security and Medicare were horrible for America.

http://tpmdc.talking...s.php?ref=fpblg

This is the true heart of the GOP - gut anything that does not help the rich. And many will go right along...

on aug 7th in this very topic I said

Obama sucks, but if anyone can name a single republican presidential candidate who doesn't kneel at the shrine of Reaganomics and tax cuts, lets hear their name. Of course the answer republicans always give (and have been giving since 1936) is social security must be decimated. They sugarcoat it with different slogans, but that is what it comes down to.

don't listen to a single word of bullshit in this thread about so-called "mainstream" republicans or how they want what is best for the country. Republicans want to destroy social security and all the money should be horded by the top. That is the way they have always been, and that is the way they always will be. If FDR could be brought back he would tell you the same thing. Any word to the contrary is subterfuge, deciept and an attempt to make you think modern republicanism is something other than a cult that worships money fueled by distrust of anyone who isn't some fundie hatemonger out to attack the gays and blacks. And soon I imagine someone will come along and tell me my comment is beyond the pale, and yet incapable of offering up a single name of any republican politician anywhere who does not subscribe to "trickle down" (read: piss on) economics.

That other guy was just awful. He sounded like he would be portraying a gangster or a cab driver from some 1940s WB movie. I am not surprised he hasn't popped up too many places since.

The show tried to get rid of Edward once and they brought on that completely wrong actor who sounded like a teamster. They wound up having to ask JI back. Edward I feel serves more of a dramatic purpose than any other Q and his absence creates this big hole in the show and it just doesn't flow right. We see it even to this day with Edward wanting Michael at ELQ. Without Edward there wouldn't be a single Q who would want him to work there, not even Alan. So you sort of need Edward to have any Q presence because Edward is the only Q that cares about the Qs as an entity. The rest can't be bothered. Without Edward you might as well write out Tracy and Monica too.

it must have killed you when Ned shared so many scenes with your favorite character, Alexis.

Their scenes together were horrible. The whole gatekeeper thing was ridiculous since no one asked them to keep any gates and no one needed them to. The Qs went 15 years without anyone keeping their gate and got along just fine, and as for Alexis..well, when Marilyn Munster is offering opinions about what is wrong with the rest of the Munsters you know the writing is completely backwards.

But the characters would remain on the canvas together for over 10 years after that (although Ned was recast). I cant even remember them having much of anything to do with each other. Considering their stories started to dry up in the late 90s/early 00s, it probably wouldnt havve been a bad thing to at least test them

Oh, I was only thinking about Kurt McK Ned. Wally Kurth Ned I try never to think about. He was so unlikable I wouldn't want him sharing scenes with anyone I like. And WK must just have this unlikable air to him because just this week I was watching DOOL and he was doing the same condescending "I know more than you, why must I be subjected to your stupidity" crap that was the hallmark of of his GH term. I honestly think this is what has held him back: he can only play a nagging, eye rolling, sighing, mean spirited jerk no one would want to share a room with for more than 20 seconds.

Thanks for the clip. Based on that though, the show seemed awful back then. I dont know what the heck was going on but it didnt seem interesting to me.

I did like Ned and Felicia though and wonder why the show never tried them. They could have been an interesting couple

That was a pretty hit and miss period for GH. The late 80s had some entertainment for all the wrong reasons, but stuff with Colton being brainwashed and Stefano DiMera (aka Domino) was just silly and not even a fun silly. I did like the goofy hospital hostage mini series they had where El President had to have heart surgery and Monica was at the time the world's greatest heart surgeon. The entire staff of GH got taken hostage by political rebels. I don't think there was really a lot of time to do Ned and Felicia. She had Colton and Frisco, he had Monica and Dawn, and I guess the only thing they had in common was Decker Moss.

Gloria Monty was a true visionary. The 1991 thing was a failure but to her credit at least she had a 1991 thing. That's what elevates her above all others: she had ideas and tried to do new things. In contrast, everyone else since Monty has been doing the same stuff again and again with never a change in vision. She felt the 1990s needed to be blue collar. I don't think that means she disliked the Quartermaines as much as she felt it was her job to come up with stuff. I guess it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.

It looks like the "Texas miracle" is based on government jobs and stimulus money that the GOP rails against.

http://tpmdc.talking...oom.php?ref=fpb

There has been a lot of looking into Texas' miracle. From everything I have read, private sector jobs are down but government jobs are way up. And while it is true Texas has fared better than most everywhere else, a lot of that stems from their unique oil economy. So while the rest of the world suffers with $100/barrel oil, for Texas this is manna from heaven and boosts their economy. That's fair I guess, but that is not something any Governor has control over.

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=7XR3WG1B6WZ67PTZ&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

This is pretty funny, but sad in a way. It must be frustrating to be Ron Paul at times.

and you are not factoring in the blue dog democrats from conservative states like uber-democrat Ben Nelson. I wonder what his master, Grover Norquist, would say if he decided to raise taxes.

Warren Buffet makes a valid point, which I agree with as well. However, to suggest that the GOP is solely responsible for this is absurd. That's because during the two years the Democrats controlled the presidency, House, and Senate, they chose not to raise the capital gains tax rate (and make the rich pay their "fair share.") And since Buffet is an ally of Obama, it is no surprise that he chose not to criticize the president or his friends in Congress.

You leave out one very important part. The democrats did not control the needed 60 seats in the senate, and republicans wouldn't even let the bush tax cuts expire. Do you really think they would have voted to raise taxes? Obama can't even get half his appointees filled, he is going to convince ten republican senators to go along with a tax increase?

I still think Romney is the most "electable" so hopefully reasoning trumps blind faith and he is selected. But this is the Republican Party we are talking about.....

I still think against any of them Obama gets a 2nd term, but at least with Romney I believe he'd have to fight for it.

There is something so phony about Romney, I don't think he has a chance of getting elected. Nobody buys his act, from his gun rights cred of "shooting varmints" once in his life, to his nauseating flip flopping on freedom of choice that is documented, to his torturous attempts at attacking Obamacare while defending Romneycare..he is a hack, a charlatan, and I think everyone sees this. That's why he couldn't even beat John McCain last time, and that's why he is destined for failure this time. Nobody likes a guy who is so blatant in changing his opinion on a dime to accommodate whoever he happens to be talking to at the moment, and his stance that corporations are people too and need our sympathy while they horde hundreds of billions as the flesh and blood people can't find jobs will come back to haunt him.

Amazingly enough the media spent years calling this guy charismatic and telegenic. If you ever doubted the Beltway was out of touch, this is the #1 example.

It looks like Michelle Bachmann all but bought her win - she paid for 4,000 tickets and she got about 4800 votes.

She has no chance to win either. I hope she wins the nomination in a landslide though just to be crushed in the general election. Just the thought of her as President with that accent his enough to make you throw your TV out so you never have to listen to her. I can't think of which republican currently has a chance of beating Obama. They tout Rick Perry but the press forgets that outside the republican primary being a Jesus freak is not a qualification for office. The cable news anchors just need a story to fill time and for the moment settled on this guy.

T-Paw is TKO!

http://tpmdc.talking...ace.php?ref=fpa

To think, years and years of shaping his political career around a would-be Presidential run, to the point of crippling Minnesota (and also inadvertently helping to cause a lot of GOP electoral failures in the state during those years). Blatant flip-flopping on major issues like global warming. Hardline social conservatism at all costs. And for what? Being an afterthought of an afterthought. This after years of gushing media attention from places like The Fix.

So long. I'm sure Minnesota Republicans might want to help get Al Franken re-elected in 2014.

I didn't think he had a shot in hell, but there is something wrong with the system when you are forced to bail out after a disappointing finish in a non-binding, 5000 person glorified town hall meeting in some small town in some tiny state. Iowa is not even in the top half of states population-wise, and I imagine the town of Ames must be tiny and wielding too much power per capita.

Anyway, has there ever been a more dull speaker than this guy? Even his mother would fall asleep when he talks.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uyRWldNKpFg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Maybe it was both that and this combined. I love the way she reflects on saying "In my day".

Is this the scene?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=hUDbUPhWTBg

It may be, I think so. I watched these episodes a few years back at aolvideo and scenes like this stood out to me because this was dialogue about real feelings everyone eventually has. Then I watch crap like I saw yesterday with Nancy Lee Grahn on GH, where despite being 50, 60 whatever she is, she is still just oh so energetic and youthful and attractive to the bartender--which is just absurd. And Carolyn Hennesy is parading around in something out of Victoria's Secret at 50. And to me, this scene you linked was 400 times better because there was something for the actress to sink her teeth into and the show did not have this ridiculous need to hide her age. I think it continues the next episode.

Compromise is when both sides give in. What Obama does is surrender to republican blackmail and gives them everything they want. That is the criticism.

for all the talk about what a great speaker Obama is, the NY Times had an Op-Ed exposing his oratorical shortcomings.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

and all we have is this milquetoast who wants consensus and compromise.

The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counterfactual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve”), or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away.

Impotent is a great word for Obama. And this op-ed is in the left wing NY Times.

oh here is the FDR speech in question. It is like he is talking about the Murdochs and Cheneys of today

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D9yoZHs6PsU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>