Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/14/2005 5:20:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 2:01:10 PM EDT by Max_Power]
Let's think about this for a minute. Scrooge was an honest hard working man. Nowhere in Dickens story are we led to belive Scrooge is a liar, cheat, or thief. Scrooge is a hard working business owner trying to succeed in London's sinking economy.

Cratchit is in a position of his own making. With six children it's no wonder he has a difficult time making ends meet. Maybe if he'd kept his pants on he wouldn't be so poor. Why does Scrooge have to be punished for Cratchit's mistakes?


Discuss.....

ETA: Yes, I'm joking.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:24:23 AM EDT
Chuck Norris
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:27:12 AM EDT
IBTTTSF (in before the tiny tim surgery fund)
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:30:15 AM EDT
Hey maby we can get a Tiny Tim Hero rifle going!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:30:56 AM EDT
If you consider the idea of Christian charity to be socialist, then yes it is.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:33:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ANGST:
Chuck Norris



Chuck would have given Cratchit a roundhouse kick to the head for asking for Christmas day off.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:34:15 AM EDT
Big difference in be generous to those less fortunate, and government taking your money by force (or threat of force/imprisonment) and giving it to people unemployed/unworthy/lazy fucking slobs.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:41:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:41:21 AM EDT by Greenhorn]
Bob Crachet couldn't work anywhere else, and Scrooge treated him like crap and paid him the bare minimum. That makes, Scrooge is a selfish tightwad.

Maybe what Scrooge did was legal, but it was not fair or kind.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:41:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:47:08 AM EDT by Fat_McNasty]

Originally Posted By efpeter:
Big difference in be generous to those less fortunate, and government taking your money by force (or threat of force/imprisonment) and giving it to people unemployed/unworthy/lazy fucking slobs.



The point is he had 6 kids and there was no child labor laws at the time, so they could have worked! Cratchit's family was a bunch of lazy asses, that rather beg for had outs than to WORK to make there lives better!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:42:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fat_McNasty:

Originally Posted By efpeter:
Big difference in be generous to those less fortunate, and government taking your money by force (or threat of force/imprisonment) and giving it to people unemployed/unworthy/lazy fucking slobs.



The point is he had 6 kids and there was no child labor laws at the time, so they could of worked! Cratchit's family was a bunch of lazy asses, that rather beg for had outs than to WORK to make there lives better!



IBGF (In before Grammar_Fascist.)

It's "could have," not "could of"
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:48:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:49:29 AM EDT by Max_Power]

Originally Posted By Fat_McNasty:

Originally Posted By efpeter:
Big difference in be generous to those less fortunate, and government taking your money by force (or threat of force/imprisonment) and giving it to people unemployed/unworthy/lazy fucking slobs.



The point is he had 6 kids and there was no child labor laws at the time, so they could of worked! Cratchit's family was a bunch of lazy asses, that rather beg for had outs than to WORK to make there lives better!




Maybe if he had 0 kids his paycheck would've gone a little further. I couldn't support six kids. Does that make my employer evil?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:49:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:

Originally Posted By Fat_McNasty:

Originally Posted By efpeter:
Big difference in be generous to those less fortunate, and government taking your money by force (or threat of force/imprisonment) and giving it to people unemployed/unworthy/lazy fucking slobs.



The point is he had 6 kids and there was no child labor laws at the time, so they could of worked! Cratchit's family was a bunch of lazy asses, that rather beg for had outs than to WORK to make there lives better!



IBGF (In before Grammar_Fascist.)

It's "could have," not "could of"



God damnit! Im a gunsmith not Charles fucking Dickens!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:56:12 AM EDT
It was written about the same time as The Communist Manifesto.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:09:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fat_McNasty:

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:

Originally Posted By Fat_McNasty:

Originally Posted By efpeter:
Big difference in be generous to those less fortunate, and government taking your money by force (or threat of force/imprisonment) and giving it to people unemployed/unworthy/lazy fucking slobs.



The point is he had 6 kids and there was no child labor laws at the time, so they could of worked! Cratchit's family was a bunch of lazy asses, that rather beg for had outs than to WORK to make there lives better!



IBGF (In before Grammar_Fascist.)

It's "could have," not "could of"



God damnit! Im a gunsmith not Charles fucking Dickens!



"Dammit, Jim- I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!"


Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:14:09 AM EDT
Not socialist, as the government didn't take his money by force, but it IS a story of unearned guilt, of a wealthy man succumbing to attempts to make him feel guilty simply for being wealthy. It's disgusting. And, no, I'm not kidding.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:18:29 AM EDT
Not to mention the whole "health care" issue. Poor Tiny Tim was sickly and lame but the Cratchit family couldn't afford proper health care for the kid. BUT WHO'S FAULT IS THAT?? Certainly not Scrooge, maybe the guvmint?? If Cratchit was such a good worker, why didn't he get a better paying job? I agree with you, the six kids were part of the problem, but the Cratchit is the main problem.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:22:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 6:23:09 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
It's a movie. Jeeze...

ETA: I caught your ETA, nevermind.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:31:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Not to mention the whole "health care" issue. Poor Tiny Tim was sickly and lame but the Cratchit family couldn't afford proper health care for the kid. BUT WHO'S FAULT IS THAT?? Certainly not Scrooge, maybe the guvmint?? If Cratchit was such a good worker, why didn't he get a better paying job? I agree with you, the six kids were part of the problem, but the Cratchit is the main problem.



It was Bush's fault.

I agree, Cratchitt shouldn't have had all those children if he couldn't afford to feed them. Mr. Scrooge was just trying to run a business.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:43:06 AM EDT
Sounds like a fine example of capitalism. Scrooge works and runs a business to build wealth. At the end Cratchets hard work and dedication to Scrooge's business score him a higher income and a partnership in the company (IIRC).
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:01:24 AM EDT
Couldn't Cratchit have taken advantage of the free condoms handed out at the local school? Just have his oldest pick them up and that way he wouldn't have ended up with 6 kids to support.



- CD
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:11:30 AM EDT
It is a wonderful holiday propaganda!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:14:24 AM EDT
Cratchit's older daughters should have been out on the corner turning tricks for shillings.

His wife could be a "house servant" for Mr. Scrooge -- as a submissive masochist tied up in his pleasure dungeon.


Um, nevermind.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:33:04 AM EDT
Some people on the board are wound so tight it cuts off the oxygen to their brains.

It is a joke...
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:40:46 AM EDT
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:03:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
It's a movie. Jeeze...

ETA: I caught your ETA, nevermind.




Guess I should have added a "I didn't read the post" option to the poll.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:09:14 AM EDT
One of my favorite stories.

Its the best play I've ever been to see.

Love the clothes too.

I keep pulling for Scrooge though...
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:11:08 AM EDT
The one with Captian Piccard is the best one.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:38:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
The one with Captian Piccard is the best one.



Patrick Stewart did a great job, but my favorite is the 1938 adaptation staring Reginald Owen.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:50:19 AM EDT
You didn't have a poll option for "Most Frequently (Mis-) Used Sitcom Plot, EVER!"
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:55:02 AM EDT
It can't be socialist until the new PC version is released with the Ghosts of "Holidays" Past/Present/Future, and the Cratchets are illegal immigrants.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:58:25 AM EDT
Damn, is there a sinister plot in every movie/novel/short story ever done?

Some people need to lighten up, Francis. Yes, there are things to watch out for, but to go looking for them in everything is beyond paraniod.

I suppose there is some socialist message in "It's a Wonderful Life", one of the best movies ever made, huh.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 11:33:52 AM EDT
How about "The Gift of The Magi"???

A rather disturbing story of a young married couple who (allegedly) have little money to buy each other Christmas presents. Rather than get her lazy ass out of the house and get a job to earn money to live a better lifestyle and maybe even buy a present for her husband, she essentially prostitutes her body for money - she cuts off and sells her very long hair!! What's next? Hair takes a long time to grow hair to that length again, maybe she'll sell (or rent) her body by the hour?

O'Henry exposed really messed-up sense of priorities in that story.



Link Posted: 12/14/2005 11:51:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HardShell:
You didn't have a poll option for "Most Frequently (Mis-) Used Sitcom Plot, EVER!"



While fliping through the channels I saw the "Sanford and Son" version the other night.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 3:43:54 PM EDT
BTT for the evening crowd.
Top Top