I thought "Troll" was someone who uses provocative language to illicit a response and/or inflame an audience.
I didn't realize it was a slur.
I might be guilty of using the word in an unseemly manner. I apologize now for my reprehensible behavior.
Here is a pretty good definition of an internet troll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
NOTHING is ever the Democrats fault. NOTHING. Somebody provide and example that disproves this statement. Good luck.
Are you effing kidding? How many threads have been devoted to how Obama and/or Hillary and/or Eric Holder and/or Democrat Mayors have destroyed the world/country/cities?
[Edited on 7/31/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
No, not kidding. Anything bad that ever happens is invariably the Republicans fault. How this can even be a matter of dispute is beyond imagination at this point.
NOTHING is ever the Democrats fault. NOTHING. Somebody provide and example that disproves this statement. Good luck.
Are you effing kidding? How many threads have been devoted to how Obama and/or Hillary and/or Eric Holder and/or Democrat Mayors have destroyed the world/country/cities?
[Edited on 7/31/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
No, not kidding. Anything bad that ever happens is invariably the Republicans fault. How this can even be a matter of dispute is beyond imagination at this point.
This thread is about Jon Stewart.
Everyone here has said they know exactly what Stewart is, yet you claim "many or most" of his followers take him seriously and believe he is a serious newsman. How would you know that?
There's no way you can be serious about this, so you've got to be just trolling. Enjoy.
1. How would Dag Vega, Obama staffer know it? He said, "Jon Stewart was a key influencer of millenialls. They relied on him for an honest take on the news.." I don't have any reason to disbelieve him, do you? if that's not enough, just using logic and common sense, how on Earth would he top Brian Williams, Katie Couric and the like as the Most Trusted News Source if millions didn't believe he was a trusted news source? C'mon, now.
Do you believe Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain were serious news people? C'mon, man. I believe millennials watch Stewart, and I that they believe he is giving them HIS honest take on the news. I also believe they are smart enough to know the difference, as are you. You're saying most millennials are idiots. I don't believe that. I believe most people don't trust the news media to report they're honest opinions. They're not supposed to. They're supposed to report the news.
2. Would that make the number of media outlets that reported this trolls too? What is a troll?
I would say yes, absolutely, the outlets that reported this as you started the thread
(Jon Stewart: Democrat Party Political Hack Political puppet from Obama's land of make believe, disguised as a free-thinking independent seeker of truth and fair-minded arbiter of political commentary)
are putting stuff out there to get people talking about them as individuals and their networks and draw attention to themselves. That is what a troll does.
NOTHING is ever the Democrats fault. NOTHING. Somebody provide and example that disproves this statement. Good luck.
Are you effing kidding? How many threads have been devoted to how Obama and/or Hillary and/or Eric Holder and/or Democrat Mayors have destroyed the world/country/cities?
[Edited on 7/31/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
No, not kidding. Anything bad that ever happens is invariably the Republicans fault. How this can even be a matter of dispute is beyond imagination at this point.
Playing the victim card again? That's lame, even for you.
Can't believe this thread is still going.
DougMac, a few weeks ago you claim you never insult anyone to prove your point. Now you throw out the troll word. Get off your high horse bro. It's easy to play Monday morning QB when you refuse to ever say anything edgy ever. Just keep playing it safe on this site so you can appear to be holier than thou, if that's who you wish to be.
In this case I'm using troll to describe a behavior, not a personal characteristic. I have no reason to believe alloak is anything but a decent guy with time on his hands. I believe alloak, like several notables before him (DOC, Squatch Texas, SCB all come to mind) likes to post things to stir stuff up and promote a specific agenda instead of discussing issues. But thanks for the advice.
Wait a minute, I finally figured this out! Stewart is really a conservative masquerading as a liberal at the behest of a liberal president to trick millennials into thinking he's a fair and unbiased news reporter while he actually promotes a liberal agenda he doesn't believe in! This is brilliant!
This just in:
Stewart will be taking over the Brian Williams spot on the NBC Nightly News.
The tragedy of it all is that the good people on the Right have nothing to do with anything that is wrong with, well, anything.
Talk about the twilight zone. How he comes up with this over and over is beyond imagination. NOTHING is ever the Democrats fault. NOTHING. Somebody provide an example that disproves this statement. Good luck.
I'm not too fond of quoting myself, but, here you go:
"I'll admit whatever anyone wants me to. I admit that Democrats contributed to a significant amount of political corruption in the 20th Century. I'll admit in many ways the Great Society has been a failure. I'll admit that Clinton had more of his share of slimy behavior. Any of it." -Bhawk, 10/8/2008
"Getting down to the party vs. party deal, hey, there's all kinds of things I'll admit about the Democrats...plenty of examples throughout history of crooks and liars and racists holding great sway, the Great Society by and large has been a failure, Bill Clinton perjured himself, made some serious mistakes on many issues. Hell, what happened happened. No sense in trying to deny history." -Bhawk, 2/14/2009
(In response to a question about Bill Clinton) "A very bright man who showed a lot of promise and could have done great things, but couldn't keep his johnson in his pants, covered the Oval Office with a thin layer of slime as a result and wasted his potential to be one of the best ever. He did more to push this country to the Right than any previous President in history. In all, a bitter disappointment. I have no problem saying that. I have no problem admitting to any historical mistake made by a Democrat, going back to the Great Society, which by and large has been a failure.On the flip side, Obama has made mistakes so far, sure." -Bhawk, 3/20/2009
"Corruption and vote-stealing are wrought throughout the Democratic Party in the 20th Century. The Great Society has been all but a total failure. Bill Clinton let his d!ck ruin what could have been a truly historic Presidency. How's that? I've got no problem saying any of those things." -Bhawk, 4/15/2009
"I'll criticize the Democrats all you want. The Great Society is a failure. The party has had long shady ties with both the mob and unions in the past. They don't always make sound decisions and often don't realize that change for the sake of changing things isn't always the best thing to do. Bill Clinton could have been one of the best ever and let his d!ck get in the way and did more to swing this country to the right more than any President before him." -Bhawk, 4/30/2010
"If you want me to, I'll admit every single Democratic wrongdoing back to the founding of the party. From the dirty union deals to the Great Society being a failure to fixing the 1960 election. I have no issue doing that, because we don't live in a perfect world and everyone makes mistakes of various seriousness." -Bhawk, 11/4/2010
"People on the Left are many times too arrogant, idealistic and unrealistic. Government cannot solve every problem. The Great Society is an abject failure. The unholy alliance of the Democratic Party and labor unions has caused a lot of damage over the years. Many times people on the Left are naive to the brutalities of the world. Democrats have leaned way too much on taxation as a remedy to problems that could be addressed otherwise. The focus on making certain playing fields level has too often been skewed by pie-in-the-sky expectations. Too many people on the Left resort to insult when they shouldn't." Bhawk, 5/7/2015
You still don't get it. I'm not talking about what Bhawk, alloak41, BillyBlastoff, gondicar, or doughron have to say. I'm talking about people with a platform to communicate from, who's words reach millions. The ones in front of the cameras and microphones.....Elected officials, cabinet level officials, ect..
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/democrats-blame-gop-ebola-outbreak-political-ads-article-1.1973334
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/politics/immigration-delay-blame/index.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-blame-ebola-on-republicans/article/2554709
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-republicans-really-to-blame-for-fatal-amtrak-crash-2015-05-15
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47252.html
http://www.readingthescore.com/typical-democrats-blame-shooting-republicans/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Kerry-Bush-ISIS-Iraq/2014/10/02/id/598212/
Many, many more examples.....Countless. I could probably post these for 24 hours straight, maybe more.
Google search "republicans blame obama"
About 16,500,000 results (0.36 seconds)
Google search "republicans blame democrats"
About 16,300,000 results (0.33 seconds)
Google search "republicans blame liberals"
About 24,600,000 results (0.38 seconds)
JUNE 17, 2014
Which party is more to blame for political polarization? It depends on the measure
BY CARROLL DOHERTY25 COMMENTSOur report on political polarization in America has renewed debate among journalists and academics over what is called “asymmetrical polarization” – the idea that one party has moved further ideologically than the other. A number of congressional scholars have concluded that the widening partisan gap in Congress is attributable mostly to a rightward shift among Republican lawmakers. But what about the public? Have Republicans nationwide shifted further than Democrats over the past two decades?
The report addresses this issue in considerable detail. What we find is clear evidence of more ideologically consistent thinking on both sides of the spectrum, as well as greater levels of partisan antipathy, though the latter is currently more acute on the right than on the left.
Ideological consistency. Currently, 23% of Democrats have liberal views across nearly all items on a 10-item political values scale, while another 33% have mostly liberal views. Among Republicans, comparable shares have either consistently conservative (20%) or mostly conservative (33%) attitudes.
In both parties, the shares expressing mostly ideological views have increased, but in very different ways. The percentage of Democrats who are liberal on all or most value dimensions has nearly doubled from just 30% in 1994 to 56% today. The share who are consistently liberal has quadrupled from just 5% to 23% over the past 20 years.
In absolute terms, the ideological shift among Republicans has been more modest. In 1994, 45% of Republicans were right-of-center, with 13% consistently conservative. Those figures are up to 53% and 20% today.
But there are two key considerations to keep in mind before concluding that the liberals are driving ideological polarization. First, 1994 was a relative high point in conservative political thinking among Republicans. In fact, between 1994 and 2004 the average Republican moved substantially toward the center ideologically, as concern about the deficit, government waste and abuses of social safety net that characterized the “Contract with America” era faded in the first term of the Bush administration.
Since 2004, Republicans have veered sharply back to the right on all of these dimensions, and the GOP ideological shift over the past decade has matched, if not exceeded, the rate at which Democrats have become more liberal.
A second consideration is that the nation as a whole has moved slightly to the left over the past 20 years, mostly because of a broad societal shift toward acceptance of homosexuality and more positive views of immigrants. Twenty years ago, these two issues created significant cleavages within the Democratic Party, as many otherwise liberal Democrats expressed more conservative values in these realms. But today, as divisions over these issues have diminished on the left, they have emerged on the right, with a subset of otherwise conservative Republicans expressing more liberal values on these social issues.
Partisan Antipathy. Among members of both parties, the shares who express very unfavorable opinions of the opposing party have approximately doubled since 1994. Today, 43% of Republicans have a highly negative opinion of the Democratic Party, while nearly as many Democrats (38%) feel very unfavorably toward the GOP.
Even so, today there is greater partisan antipathy on the right than the left. In the current survey, we asked those who had a very unfavorable opinion of the opposing party: Would you say that party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being, or wouldn’t you go that far?” Among Democrats, 27% go so far as to say the GOP is a threat to the well-being of the country. A higher percentage of Republicans (36%) say Democratic policies threaten the nation.
The disparity is much larger when ideology is factored in. Among consistently conservative Republicans, 66% regard Democratic policies as a threat to the nation’s well-being. Substantially fewer (50%) of consistently liberal Democrats think Republican policies represent a threat to the nation.
One caveat: There is no trend on the “threat” question. Other data show that Republicans are intensely opposed to the Obama presidency, which is likely a factor in their highly negative opinions of the Democratic Party. At a comparable point in George W. Bush’s second term, negative views of Bush among Democrats were on par with negative opinions of Obama among Republicans today. But it is not possible to determine the depth of Democratic antipathy toward the GOP at that time.
The Personal Side of Polarization. Among the questions we have gotten on polarization is this: If Republicans and Democrats increasingly view the opposing party in highly negative terms, do they also view each other more negatively?
Comparably small shares in both parties – 15% of Democrats and 17% of Republicans – say they would be unhappy if a family member married someone from the opposing party. Even among consistent conservatives and liberals, the numbers who would have angst over a family marriage to a someone from the “other” party are not very large (30% of consistent conservatives, 23% of consistent liberals).
Yet on another dimension of personal polarization – having friends who generally share your politics – consistent conservatives stand out. Fully 63% of consistent conservatives say most of their close friends share their political views, compared with 49% of consistent liberals. Moreover, far more on the right (50%) than left (35%) say it is important to live in a place where most people share their political views.
While these “ideological silos” are more common on the right than the left, what is equally striking is how little it matters for those with a mix of liberal and conservative views. Just 25% of those with mixed ideological views say most of their friends share their views and just 22% say it is important to live in a community where most share their views.
The tragedy of it all is that the good people on the Right have nothing to do with anything that is wrong with, well, anything.
Talk about the twilight zone. How he comes up with this over and over is beyond imagination. NOTHING is ever the Democrats fault. NOTHING. Somebody provide an example that disproves this statement. Good luck.
I'm not too fond of quoting myself, but, here you go:
"I'll admit whatever anyone wants me to. I admit that Democrats contributed to a significant amount of political corruption in the 20th Century. I'll admit in many ways the Great Society has been a failure. I'll admit that Clinton had more of his share of slimy behavior. Any of it." -Bhawk, 10/8/2008
"Getting down to the party vs. party deal, hey, there's all kinds of things I'll admit about the Democrats...plenty of examples throughout history of crooks and liars and racists holding great sway, the Great Society by and large has been a failure, Bill Clinton perjured himself, made some serious mistakes on many issues. Hell, what happened happened. No sense in trying to deny history." -Bhawk, 2/14/2009
(In response to a question about Bill Clinton) "A very bright man who showed a lot of promise and could have done great things, but couldn't keep his johnson in his pants, covered the Oval Office with a thin layer of slime as a result and wasted his potential to be one of the best ever. He did more to push this country to the Right than any previous President in history. In all, a bitter disappointment. I have no problem saying that. I have no problem admitting to any historical mistake made by a Democrat, going back to the Great Society, which by and large has been a failure.On the flip side, Obama has made mistakes so far, sure." -Bhawk, 3/20/2009
"Corruption and vote-stealing are wrought throughout the Democratic Party in the 20th Century. The Great Society has been all but a total failure. Bill Clinton let his d!ck ruin what could have been a truly historic Presidency. How's that? I've got no problem saying any of those things." -Bhawk, 4/15/2009
"I'll criticize the Democrats all you want. The Great Society is a failure. The party has had long shady ties with both the mob and unions in the past. They don't always make sound decisions and often don't realize that change for the sake of changing things isn't always the best thing to do. Bill Clinton could have been one of the best ever and let his d!ck get in the way and did more to swing this country to the right more than any President before him." -Bhawk, 4/30/2010
"If you want me to, I'll admit every single Democratic wrongdoing back to the founding of the party. From the dirty union deals to the Great Society being a failure to fixing the 1960 election. I have no issue doing that, because we don't live in a perfect world and everyone makes mistakes of various seriousness." -Bhawk, 11/4/2010
"People on the Left are many times too arrogant, idealistic and unrealistic. Government cannot solve every problem. The Great Society is an abject failure. The unholy alliance of the Democratic Party and labor unions has caused a lot of damage over the years. Many times people on the Left are naive to the brutalities of the world. Democrats have leaned way too much on taxation as a remedy to problems that could be addressed otherwise. The focus on making certain playing fields level has too often been skewed by pie-in-the-sky expectations. Too many people on the Left resort to insult when they shouldn't." Bhawk, 5/7/2015
How on earth do you find those old threads? Is there some search mechanism I'm not aware of?
Here's my two cents.
Stewart is certainly not a serious news person. At the same time you cannot possibly compare his show to that of Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live which is pure spoof. It is undeniable that Stewart at times asks his audience to take him seriously and the President of the United States would not appear on his show if he didn't think it was a way to get his message across. He would not appear on a show like Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update or on a show likely to embarass or ridicule him. That's just obvious.
Of course he is not a serious figure. He is also, in my opinion, not an especially funny figure which is his true flaw. True satire and true comedy are much richer and deeper than anything he does. Stewart's shtick is to post out of context a clip from Fox News or some other right wing source and then to go bug eyed as the audience whoops and hollers. That is not humor it's snark. In my opinion. Stewart did not single handedly degenerate humor into snark but he certainly accelerated the trend. Real sharp satire can be seen on such outlets as the original Saturday Night Live, the old National Lampoon, Mad Magazine in its heyday, Doonesbury (a liberal source for sure) in its heyday, Bloom County and many others. John Stewart is not a satirist and in my opinion he has added nothing to the body of humor. This is not because he is liberal. His humor lacks wit and warmth and irony. As does much modern humor. In the final analysis Stewart is a fancy wrapped insult comic and not an especially funny one. Don Rickles has him beat on that front.
Here's my two cents.
Stewart is certainly not a serious news person. At the same time you cannot possibly compare his show to that of Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live which is pure spoof. It is undeniable that Stewart at times asks his audience to take him seriously and the President of the United States would not appear on his show if he didn't think it was a way to get his message across. He would not appear on a show like Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update or on a show likely to embarass or ridicule him. That's just obvious.
Of course he is not a serious figure. He is also, in my opinion, not an especially funny figure which is his true flaw. True satire and true comedy are much richer and deeper than anything he does. Stewart's shtick is to post out of context a clip from Fox News or some other right wing source and then to go bug eyed as the audience whoops and hollers. That is not humor it's snark. In my opinion. Stewart did not single handedly degenerate humor into snark but he certainly accelerated the trend. Real sharp satire can be seen on such outlets as the original Saturday Night Live, the old National Lampoon, Mad Magazine in its heyday, Doonesbury (a liberal source for sure) in its heyday, Bloom County and many others. John Stewart is not a satirist and in my opinion he has added nothing to the body of humor. This is not because he is liberal. His humor lacks wit and warmth and irony. As does much modern humor. In the final analysis Stewart is a fancy wrapped insult comic and not an especially funny one. Don Rickles has him beat on that front.
Even though he has a liberal slant I don't find him particularly funny. I personally prefer Bill Maher myself as he at least has conservatives every week on his panel.
The tragedy of it all is that the good people on the Right have nothing to do with anything that is wrong with, well, anything.
Talk about the twilight zone. How he comes up with this over and over is beyond imagination. NOTHING is ever the Democrats fault. NOTHING. Somebody provide an example that disproves this statement. Good luck.
I'm not too fond of quoting myself, but, here you go:
"I'll admit whatever anyone wants me to. I admit that Democrats contributed to a significant amount of political corruption in the 20th Century. I'll admit in many ways the Great Society has been a failure. I'll admit that Clinton had more of his share of slimy behavior. Any of it." -Bhawk, 10/8/2008
"Getting down to the party vs. party deal, hey, there's all kinds of things I'll admit about the Democrats...plenty of examples throughout history of crooks and liars and racists holding great sway, the Great Society by and large has been a failure, Bill Clinton perjured himself, made some serious mistakes on many issues. Hell, what happened happened. No sense in trying to deny history." -Bhawk, 2/14/2009
(In response to a question about Bill Clinton) "A very bright man who showed a lot of promise and could have done great things, but couldn't keep his johnson in his pants, covered the Oval Office with a thin layer of slime as a result and wasted his potential to be one of the best ever. He did more to push this country to the Right than any previous President in history. In all, a bitter disappointment. I have no problem saying that. I have no problem admitting to any historical mistake made by a Democrat, going back to the Great Society, which by and large has been a failure.On the flip side, Obama has made mistakes so far, sure." -Bhawk, 3/20/2009
"Corruption and vote-stealing are wrought throughout the Democratic Party in the 20th Century. The Great Society has been all but a total failure. Bill Clinton let his d!ck ruin what could have been a truly historic Presidency. How's that? I've got no problem saying any of those things." -Bhawk, 4/15/2009
"I'll criticize the Democrats all you want. The Great Society is a failure. The party has had long shady ties with both the mob and unions in the past. They don't always make sound decisions and often don't realize that change for the sake of changing things isn't always the best thing to do. Bill Clinton could have been one of the best ever and let his d!ck get in the way and did more to swing this country to the right more than any President before him." -Bhawk, 4/30/2010
"If you want me to, I'll admit every single Democratic wrongdoing back to the founding of the party. From the dirty union deals to the Great Society being a failure to fixing the 1960 election. I have no issue doing that, because we don't live in a perfect world and everyone makes mistakes of various seriousness." -Bhawk, 11/4/2010
"People on the Left are many times too arrogant, idealistic and unrealistic. Government cannot solve every problem. The Great Society is an abject failure. The unholy alliance of the Democratic Party and labor unions has caused a lot of damage over the years. Many times people on the Left are naive to the brutalities of the world. Democrats have leaned way too much on taxation as a remedy to problems that could be addressed otherwise. The focus on making certain playing fields level has too often been skewed by pie-in-the-sky expectations. Too many people on the Left resort to insult when they shouldn't." Bhawk, 5/7/2015
How on earth do you find those old threads? Is there some search mechanism I'm not aware of?
Ya, it's a part of the Forum, up towards the top, you can click on "Search." Always been a bit clunky, though. I'm also cursed with a trap memory, I've got a lot of stuff I'd like to forget, actually.
Here's my two cents.
Stewart is certainly not a serious news person. At the same time you cannot possibly compare his show to that of Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live which is pure spoof. It is undeniable that Stewart at times asks his audience to take him seriously and the President of the United States would not appear on his show if he didn't think it was a way to get his message across. He would not appear on a show like Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update or on a show likely to embarass or ridicule him. That's just obvious.
Of course he is not a serious figure. He is also, in my opinion, not an especially funny figure which is his true flaw. True satire and true comedy are much richer and deeper than anything he does. Stewart's shtick is to post out of context a clip from Fox News or some other right wing source and then to go bug eyed as the audience whoops and hollers. That is not humor it's snark. In my opinion. Stewart did not single handedly degenerate humor into snark but he certainly accelerated the trend. Real sharp satire can be seen on such outlets as the original Saturday Night Live, the old National Lampoon, Mad Magazine in its heyday, Doonesbury (a liberal source for sure) in its heyday, Bloom County and many others. John Stewart is not a satirist and in my opinion he has added nothing to the body of humor. This is not because he is liberal. His humor lacks wit and warmth and irony. As does much modern humor. In the final analysis Stewart is a fancy wrapped insult comic and not an especially funny one. Don Rickles has him beat on that front.
Even though he has a liberal slant I don't find him particularly funny. I personally prefer Bill Maher myself as he at least has conservatives every week on his panel.
I like Maher also.
I think he's pretty funny, but because we share similar views. It's understandable why some conservatives don't see the humor. I think the main issue is that his whole M.O. is to point out the hypocrisy of the right, as if it's some sort of proof that they are "wrong", and he is right. In actuality, everyone is a hypocrite on a daily basis, so there's really no merit to what he says, except that its funny if you agree with him.
I think the main issue is that his whole M.O. is to point out the hypocrisy of the right, as if it's some sort of proof that they are "wrong", and he is right. In actuality, everyone is a hypocrite on a daily basis, so there's really no merit to what he says, except that its funny if you agree with him.
Sooooooo...no one is ever wrong...about...anything?
Now that's polarization. 😉
So about the first Republican debate. Completely controlled by Fox News, including who gets to participate. Of course, this is the first debate in what will end up being about 347 or so.
However, conservatives often voice their concerns with biased media and such. Isn't it at least a small amount of concern that their primary process is being controlled at the onset by media? How can the complaints about other media outlets being friendly to Democratic candidates be at all heartfelt or sincere?
So about the first Republican debate. Completely controlled by Fox News, including who gets to participate. Of course, this is the first debate in what will end up being about 347 or so.
However, conservatives often voice their concerns with biased media and such. Isn't it at least a small amount of concern that their primary process is being controlled at the onset by media? How can the complaints about other media outlets being friendly to Democratic candidates be at all heartfelt or sincere?
Who gets to participate is determined by the rules set a while back. It's the top 10 from an average of polls I believe. Also, I believe the RNC is limiting the number of debates this time in order to minimize the potential damage. This contrasts with last cycle. With that said - the inclusion of the "peoples' favorite", Donald Trump, there still remains the possibility of significant damage. Happy watching.
The bottom feeders left off the stage will probably be just an after thought in days after the debate.
Who gets to participate is determined by the rules set a while back.
Correct...the rules set by Fox News. 😉
[Edited on 8/4/2015 by Bhawk]
Who gets to participate is determined by the rules set a while back.
Correct...the rules set by Fox News. 😉
[Edited on 8/4/2015 by Bhawk]
Agreed. My point was basically that they determined in advance a cutoff of 10, which I think is more than fair; maybe too many on stage at once. The individuals who don't make the cut probably shouldn't have put their hat in the ring anyways. I doubt the polling moving forward would have had (example - number 14) moving up enough to be a real challenger.
Looking forward to this beauty pageant.
Sorry to see Stewart go. Agree with the those who say he was not funny with all the eye-rolling. Never thought that was funny. Thought his Bush imitation was the worst and most unfunny thing I may have ever seen on TV and that includes the absolute worst of SNL. The fact that he kept doing it made it worse.
Having said that, I keep seeing Stewart referred to as snark as if the politicians and situations he was making fun of deserved respect in the first place. I haven't watched the show for a while now but when he was at his best Stewart wouldn't drag humor down to the level of stupid insults as he would simply reply to the bulls*t that politicians tell us with a straight face with the degree ridiculousness they actually deserve. For example I loved when he interviewed Tim Geigtner about his new book and he said, to his face, "you say 'book' where I say novel but let's continue." Or the last Jim Cramer bit I saw where he showed clips of Cramer screaming about how Jamey Diamond "had a gun to his head" and was "ordered" to buy Bear Stearns and then said "Apparently our old friend still does not realize that his shows are taped and archived" and then showed Cramer's show from the day the deal was announced saying "there are no words in the English language that can adequately describe what a genius Jamey Diamond is for making this dead for Bear Sterns" and so on. Love it.
Sadly, Stewart, Colbert, Jon Stewart and perhaps Bill Mahar (who does always strike me a condescending and not funny most of the time) are the only places that seem to talk about certain important issues that just do not get covered in the corporate controlled media (and now that is apparently being corrected by said corporate media). This doesn't make them serious news people ... but it does make them the only ones covering certain topics with the critical analysis they deserve.
Seen the guy whose replaced Colbert on the Daily Show a few times. Best of luck but he did not strike me as that funny. Never heard of the guy replacing Stewart
This thread also reminded me of one of the funniest things I have ever seen on TV. Not sure what Sarah Palin was thinking agreeing to this but that's just one example on a long long list I guess:
https://screen.yahoo.com/palin-rap-000000488.html
I think he's pretty funny, but because we share similar views. It's understandable why some conservatives don't see the humor. I think the main issue is that his whole M.O. is to point out the hypocrisy of the right, as if it's some sort of proof that they are "wrong", and he is right. In actuality, everyone is a hypocrite on a daily basis, so there's really no merit to what he says, except that its funny if you agree with him.
Real humor should be funny whether you agree with the humorist politically or not.
So about the first Republican debate. Completely controlled by Fox News, including who gets to participate. Of course, this is the first debate in what will end up being about 347 or so.
However, conservatives often voice their concerns with biased media and such. Isn't it at least a small amount of concern that their primary process is being controlled at the onset by media? How can the complaints about other media outlets being friendly to Democratic candidates be at all heartfelt or sincere?
The whole way the modern presidential campaigns are run is nuts.
I think he's pretty funny, but because we share similar views. It's understandable why some conservatives don't see the humor. I think the main issue is that his whole M.O. is to point out the hypocrisy of the right, as if it's some sort of proof that they are "wrong", and he is right. In actuality, everyone is a hypocrite on a daily basis, so there's really no merit to what he says, except that its funny if you agree with him.
Real humor should be funny whether you agree with the humorist politically or not.
I always thought that Stew was pretty funny.
So about the first Republican debate. Completely controlled by Fox News, including who gets to participate. Of course, this is the first debate in what will end up being about 347 or so.
However, conservatives often voice their concerns with biased media and such. Isn't it at least a small amount of concern that their primary process is being controlled at the onset by media? How can the complaints about other media outlets being friendly to Democratic candidates be at all heartfelt or sincere?
The whole way the modern presidential campaigns are run is nuts.
Pure bread and circuses at this point, IMO.
Sorry to see Stewart go. Agree with the those who say he was not funny with all the eye-rolling. Never thought that was funny. Thought his Bush imitation was the worst and most unfunny thing I may have ever seen on TV and that includes the absolute worst of SNL. The fact that he kept doing it made it worse.
Having said that, I keep seeing Stewart referred to as snark as if the politicians and situations he was making fun of deserved respect in the first place. I haven't watched the show for a while now but when he was at his best Stewart wouldn't drag humor down to the level of stupid insults as he would simply reply to the bulls*t that politicians tell us with a straight face with the degree ridiculousness they actually deserve. For example I loved when he interviewed Tim Geigtner about his new book and he said, to his face, "you say 'book' where I say novel but let's continue." Or the last Jim Cramer bit I saw where he showed clips of Cramer screaming about how Jamey Diamond "had a gun to his head" and was "ordered" to buy Bear Stearns and then said "Apparently our old friend still does not realize that his shows are taped and archived" and then showed Cramer's show from the day the deal was announced saying "there are no words in the English language that can adequately describe what a genius Jamey Diamond is for making this dead for Bear Sterns" and so on. Love it.
Sadly, Stewart, Colbert, Jon Stewart and perhaps Bill Mahar (who does always strike me a condescending and not funny most of the time) are the only places that seem to talk about certain important issues that just do not get covered in the corporate controlled media (and now that is apparently being corrected by said corporate media). This doesn't make them serious news people ... but it does make them the only ones covering certain topics with the critical analysis they deserve.
Seen the guy whose replaced Colbert on the Daily Show a few times. Best of luck but he did not strike me as that funny. Never heard of the guy replacing Stewart
SInce I made the original point about Stewart as snarky rather than witty let me elaborate. My criticism of him is purely aesthetic. I just don't think he is funny. But I think that his target audience things he is funny and that is because humor has been reduced to snark. If you want to see brilliant political satire going back 80 years check out the Marx Brothers' "Duck Soup" with Groucho singing "Whatever it is I'm against it." We could dissect humor and what makes something funny forever but ultimately its subjective obviously. I just think that real satire has to have a modicum of what we call "wit". I dont think Stewart or many other modern comediens are witty or have a daring sensibility (like say a Lenny Bruce or George Carlin or Richard Pryor) It's very safe to roll your eyes at hypocritical politicians or public figures who's statements are frequently taken out of context for the purpose of making them look stupid. Or like Colbert, to portray a parody of a n extreme right wing maniac for an audience of appreciative liberals.
The worst thing is you concede Stewart's not funny but say he will be missed anyway because he, Colbert, etc. are the only ones covering certain issues. You may be right you may be wrong but it's a sad indictment of our age. As for Mahaer he is arrogant and condescending but has the ability to be genuinely funny at times while Stewart is rarely if ever funny. Same with Colbert. In my opinion.
DR, I agree and I think some others in this thread do to: it is a really sad comment on the state of things that it is left to guys like Mahr, J Oliver, Stewart etc. to provide exposure a light on these things. Very sad.
For some reason I have seen J Stewart referred to as snark not just here but in several articles recently like the Ny Times,Guardian and elsewhere. One of those things tha just fits I guess (not to me but clearly for others) Agree also humor, like music, is subjective. I thought Stewart's interview with Geitner was pretty brave among others (not just the book/novel comment).
Will definitely have to check out that Marx Bros. that sounds hilarious!
