This is the thread for the Fox News "Daily Show for conservatives" thing

Feel free to sign up for their email list, too.

It took me a couple of episodes to figure out that the Colbert Report is a show about a liberal pretending to be a conservative and ultimately the goal was to make conservatives looks like idiots.

...thus proving his own point.

i gave up before finding that one.

uh, sure, that's exactly it

xp

^ lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Coto

^ lol

You know, it's funny you say that because I will not watch those shows. Not because I probably wouldn't find parts of the shows funny but because I know what they think about conservatives even when they are poking fun at liberals. They hold us in disdain and I can't get passed that.
35 posted on 01/28/2007 4:16:37 PM PST by coffee260 (

I am pretty sure he is her father.

uh... no. these do not exist.

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1914

this is not in the least bit surprising to me

Really? I guess I'd have assumed that Nealon was a liberal, but that's mostly based on the fact that he's vegan.

HA. this is the same greg daniels from King of the Hill and The Office, right?

Still, some of these ideas are pretty good, and i'd watch 'em:
- Rodney Dangerfield and Margaret Thatcher
- Jimmy Carter would analyze major issues while fly fishing

Quick youtube bit (*warning: clip reportedly contains Marion Barry jokes*)

Um, wouldn't that be the Daily Show?

Don't Tell Mama I'm for Obama

Hmmmmm...

He promised a lot of attacking of "sacred cows" that "never get attacked on television" like "global warming and barack obama."

soooooo OTM.

Yeah, this is gonna be HILARIOUS.

Surnow: The Half Hour News Hour

Praeger: (Pause) Ah... (Laughs) Even that's great!

plz to decode Buttstank?

The show is basically a bad version of the worst of Tina Fey's Weekend Update writing. I got really annoyed by Fey, who seemed to think Weekend Update was primarily about "informing" the audience (with heavy liberal bias), and only secondarily about joke-writing. Unfunny jokes were her stock in trade, but not for lack of talent, really -- just because she was choosing her material not according to the comedy value, but according to the educational value.

Result? Liberals went ga-ga over her for her relentless didacticism -- like her, they wanted not gags but "teachable moments" -- whereas Jimmy Fallon got all the laughs. You know-- laughs. The thing Weekend Update was supposed to be delivering.

My GOD, does this show blow. The guy doing the newscast shouldn't be allowed on studio property for fear whatever he has might be transmitted to other actors. The writing...well, it's like something you would expect from writers who have never done humor. Which makes me wonder if the second-tier talent from 24 is involved. Earth to Joel Surnow: comedy is a SPECIALTY. It's not enough to be able to fill a page and make a deadline. You have to have a special talent.

While Jon & the TDS crew do have a left-leaning point, is it really that hard to see that the show goes after those in power and pompous politicians doing stupid things? They constantly laughed or grimaced at Kerry's plunders two years ago, much less the Clinton Admin. Altho, that Admin was less stockd with braying jackasses, so the jokes weren't as easy.

WTF: Brian Unger is on this thing?!

Libertarian here. Not the party, the political philosophy(which ironically borders on a distaste for parties in general).

And what do you man by not have thought things through thoroughly" shadowcat?
I find when people say things like that they mean "accept political parties, if you don't you're wasting your time!" or "The government needs to interfere on behalf of (insert X whiney group who has no right to complain) because they're too lazy to get off their ass and do something other than whine!"
I had this LOONG discussion wih a very leftist woman. it was about the smoking bans.
"but what about the people who don't smoke?"
Who's making them go there?
"Where else will they go?"
A non=smoking restaraunt.
"Those didn't exist."
Hahahaa! Yeah they did. they were all over.
"You probably don't remember, but ost places were either smoking all over or the smoking section was poorly divided."
Yeah, I remember, and whle some places were poorly set up, newer restaraunts were very different.
"circular argument!"
No.
"Why should I have do deal with the smoke?"
You don't. Go somewhere else.
"Why should I have to?"
Because the owner of a private establishment has chosen not to abolish a certain legal activity.
"Where else should I go?"
That loop continued for about 10 minutes.
Eventually I suggested the alternative of getting together and starting a business that didn't have smoking.
"Well that's really hard!"(more or less)
Name a business that's easy and guaranteed, and I'll punch you for being stupid(isn't what I said, but it's what I meant).
"But a non smoking restaraunt would fail!"
Well first, that would show a lack of interest by the public for that kind of restaraunt, and second we're sitting in a restaraunt that's been non-smoking from day one and it's doing just fine.
"but what about the health risks for employees?"
at that point I gave up and didn't say "Who forced them to work there? NO ONE likes to work in food service, so they've probably got jack for skills and shouldn't be picky!"
I did however touch on the idea of PRECEDENT.

SO. if you're calling me an idealist, thank you.
If you just think that the government should be like an overprotective christian parent and watch and guide our every move, try making choices for yourself for a whole month. No book can tell you what to do, you cannot ask for advice. You will make every decision for yourself.
I suggest you do this on vacation.
My guess is you'll either be addicted to freedom or be frightened by choice. In case one, I'll congradulate you, in case two, I pity you.

Quickest sign that you have no argument: "lolz your punctuation sucks," which, while not a direct quote is fairly humouous in it's irony.

Oh, and I quit smoking last month, and prefer my brain cells specifically not coated in a waxy, irremovable substance that causes me to be too lazy for the letters Y and O.

and what on earth do you mean by "intelligible speech"?
I'm not DICTATING this so that's utter nonsense. Please take the time to type what you mean, as this is obviously not that.

Because clearly a) no-one here has ever had to make decisions for themselves before; and ii) relying on others for advice is a sign of weakness.

GZ I'm sick and tired of libertarians telling me that defending and promoting enforcement of labor, health and environmental standards is some kind of delusion we should unshackle ourselves from. Stop telling me what to do. And stop pretending that your standard of living and well-being is somehow unconnected from generations of political and human-rights movements that worked, fought and sacrificed so that you could enjoy the fruits of a society that hasn't yet managed to pollute all its rivers, allow banks and speculators to drive its economy into the ground, and drive all its citizens into an early grave with backbreaking, low-paid work.

"Buck up! You wouldn't have lasted a day on the Oregon Trail you buncha softies!" is not even close to anything I've said.
In fact, I have no idea what it could possibly have to do with liitation of personal freedoms.

I'm not 100% against government involvement in things like pollution(dumping, factory emissions, things that affect large areas) or fair labor practices(minimum wage, required to carry workers comp). I have a problem with the erosion of personal freedom.
Telling a business they can't allow their customers to do certain things is insane.
First it's smoking, next it's swearing, then it's questioning your leaders.
That's a 20 year journey, but it's quite possible.

1. A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2. B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3. B is wrong; therefore
4. A is wrong. (straw man)

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.

i am shocked - SHOCKED - that you support government interaction in regulating harmful emissions you have nothing to do with, yet oppose it regulating harmful emissions that you personally enjoy

you, sir, are a true patriot

WOW you don't know anything about international economics or the realities of global trade.

Some people must have.
Some people have not.
But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain.
Some people will work.
Some simply will not.
But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain.
Like this: It's society's fault I don't have a job.
It's society's fault I am a slob.
I have potential no one can see.
Give me welfare. Let me be me!
Hey, Bud, you're livin' in the Land of the Free.
No one's gonna hand you opportunity!
Some people must have.
Some never will.
But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain.
I don't have a house. I don't have a car.
I spend all my money getting' drunk in a bar.
I wanna be rich. I don't have a brain.
Just give me a handout while I complain.
Or this: I wanna stay in bed and watch TV.
Go out weekends in a limousine
And dance all night takin' lots of drugs
And wake up when I wanna.
Hey, Bud, you're livin' in the Land of the Free.
No one's gonna hand you opportunity!
Some people will learn.
Some never do.
But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain.
Yeah, they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain.

He's a whore on the level of Mo Rocca, this is not that surprising.

1. that people really believe jimmy fallon brought the roffles over tina fey
2. bhopal
3. smart people wasting their time arguing with the funtionally retarded.

SRSLY. The only thing he ever did on that show is giggle and bat his eyes coyly at the camera.

1. do not EVER contest anything The GZeus says (cf. IMM, ILG, countless examples)
2. I will teach anybody how to install and run the killfile in firefox ok? I should write up a howto and post it to a thread.

"WOW you don't know anything about international economics or the realities of global trade."
So the complete debasement of the manufacturing base in the USA has nothing to do with everything saying "made in china" on it?
I thought people in this thread would be against big busiess CEOs getting richer as they lay off their union workers to put shildren to work.

"I think the GZeus is a Libertarian because he wants to buy Japan-only hentai PS2 games and the modchips to play them from Lik Sang."
Buh?
I don't have a PS2(kinda want one, but only for Katamari) and I was against Sony's actions because they(I believe unlawfully) interfered with free trade.
I don't buy from china if it's reasonably possible, in fact.
H-games are boring as hell, dude. I used to hit keys at random to 'play' one of them yars back before I could read japanese. Once I could read the dialogue I realised that the story I thought it in had was false and it was in fact retarded. (stunted, emotionally and socially, but I won't get into why)
Please excuse this rambling bumbling post but I don't like walking away from misunderstandings or weird slander.

GZeus, do you know that modern anti-smoking legislation - in every municipality and country where it's been adopted - has its foundation and justification in workplace health and safety? The "door" that was left open for this legislation to walk through was won over the last century in a disparate, gruelling set of battles to secure the right of workers to not be driven to an early grave simply because of the place they work.

What kind of door does it open, what kind of PRECEDENT does it set, to say that some lines of work are simply not deserving of workplace health safeguards? Because they are "dives", or unsavoury, or whatever other reason, big or small?

Republican=insult right there.
denial=lieing to oneself. I don't take well to being called a liar.

/\that's a list. They should be seperated by enter keys. Would you like me to add the HTML code to put bullet points? Wait, I suck at HTML...

Name other regularions that prevent people in a private establishment from doing something legal just because other people don't like it.
It gives a little wiggle room for crazy people to argue things like no gay kissing in public(this was argued somewhere in the USA a few years ago, I think). Such things wouldn't pass in the current political environment, but it would caus more mudslinging, erbal battles, and trench digging on both sides.
In the future that sort of thing might pass in some city, on the grounds it's bad for these good christian children as it;s against their relgion, and it impedes on their rights to live in a sin-free environment.

I'm going a bit far, but it's intentional and done to make a point.

Have you seen the filtration systems in current restaraunts? The distance between smoking and non? The fact the cigars and 'aromatic'(fucking vague enough to include about anything strong) cigarettes were already banned by the restaraunts and bars themselves?

And yeah, the audience a dive bar caters to smokes.
If you don't want to be around smoke don't work in a place that caters to smokers. That's basic logic, that.
People are also more prone to smoke when the drink(many theories as to why, I'm sure) so ...repeat.

Don't get in a boxing ring if you don't want to get hit.
This is not legislation of employees/workers in a workplace, it's legislation of CUSTOMERS.
Of THE PUBLIC.
There is a difference, though not enough for me to back the anti workplace smoking laws. Why not repeal them? What company's workers would allow their company to go back? What company would be crazy enough?

Basically the motivation I see is that anti-smokers got impatient and couldn't wait for the eventuality of restaraunts doing this themselves and decided to force the issue.

Um you don't think it has more to do with established health risks of second hand smoke more than "just not liking it"?

To be fair some people may think that watching same-sex kisses causes cancer though.

Read the legislation. It has nothing to do with customers. It has to do with workers and their right to have a full career in their place of employment without going to an early grave. It's that simple and yes, there is a difference between that and legislating what customers can or can't do with their own bodies. Because that's not the point. Note that cigarettes remain legal.

Don't get in a boxing ring if you don't want to get hit.

And don't smoke in a New York restaurant, bar or club if you don't want to get thrown out. When in Rome...

^^ whats your take on workers comp for employees who get cancer which couldve been easily prevented with a regulation of cancer-causing substances in their place of employment?

Futhermore: auto shop. Tell me how to get the work needed to get done there done in the winter without getting even more carcinogen exposure.
Workplace hazard. Goes with the territory.

I've already said this isn't a slippery slope argument.

The boxing RING analogy is an exageration to make a point.

In Japan there are no smoking bans, to my knowledge, other than on the trains. The shinkansen has a few smoking cars, though.
Thing is, more and more places have either no smoking at all, or a seperate room.
Still more smoking there than here, but it's not in style any more, and is just fading out.

Ya couldn't wait?

wow

Not if you work there! Unless you're ready to get fired. And then go work at one of those non-smoking bars that you have already said don't exist.

-- and what (an...), Today. (later)

lol

The anger gets redirected towards the people making a living wage, not at the companies lowballing the pay rates(and supporting politicos and pundits who go on about how the min.wage will destroy business, bring on communism, violate your daughters, etc)

xp

Know why non-smoking bars didn't exist? people didn't want them.
However, non-smoking restaraunts that sevre liqour did.

Oh, and yes, I do just want the last word at this point. I can agree to disagree, but not to people calling me stupid because they disagree.
63k is actually a barely managable wage for people who actually want to retire, and I think the fact that people somehow still think 30k a year will cut is really sad.
No one saves money ay more, we're all in debt up to our eyeballs, and we still can't see something that simple...

I know some people who are bartenders and like it.
They knew the industry they were getting into, and half of them already smoked. The other half were annoyed at the drop in cigarettes sales and number of customers.

I call bullshit.

I would totally be in favor of places being able to apply for hugely expensive smoking licenses, in the same way dance clubs or carnivals have to get extra permits. And the establishment would be obligated to pay for really good health-care (the same way other high-risk workplaces do). You could have these, like, smoking EMPORIA.

I would have been fine with tax breaks for non-smoking bars.

-- Euai Kapaui (tracerhan...)

this is otm

Could we get back to talking about this toilet of a TV show? I think both sides have said their peice.

I would be surprised if that's the case. If so, it shows how pathetic the demand from bartenders themselves is to keep smoking going in most places. (I would be very interested in the mechanics of the "vote" at a bar run by Philip Morris).

I suspect that instead it's like NYC, where as long as at least 10% of the establishment's receipts are from tobacco you can smoke to your heart's content. i.e. you are a CUSTOMER for the product, rather than bringing it in with you.

I wonder how GZeus feels about the longstanding smoking ban in cinemas. Those places used to be a smoker's paradise.

more here. Includes a 2nd YT vid, "where the show's producers discuss who might be offended at it."

It is the case. Or at least according to the owner of Amber (in SF), it's the case. There is one other place that is run the same way, I think (the Phonebooth maybe?)

liberals = better educated
smarter people "get" more jokes, tell better jokes
Suck on THAT stereotype, red-staters!

thus the contrast of niles vs archie

LOL a++

I'm all for there being non-smoking establishments. Even that being the majority! I mean, most people don't smoke. It just makes sense for smokers to have fewer places to go.
Thing is, if I'm going to see a noise band in a dive bar, what happens is 50%+ of the audience is rotating 5-15 peoplee at a time in and out the door, getting more and more annoyed.
It actually never bothered me that much(I kinda like the cold and how that neighborhood looks) but other people tended to get sick of trying to mark their territory, protect their drinks, take turns being the chair-watcher and spending alot less time listening to the music.

That's the only personal problem I have. It just makes me sad to see bands I like miss out being heard.
But it was more what I mentioned earlier.
I'd prefer to play in a place that allows smoking. it's the audience I want to play for. *shrugs* I have to sellte for the place where the most people are standing outside in the dead of winter ;)

I wasn't aware smokers were a separate audience.

(kidding)

i have gone from laughing at how bad this show looks to already feeling kind of sorry for it before the first episode ever airs.

I don't think I can be drunk enough to watch this thing...

HA you don't remember his TV show, do you?

Hint: it was a lot like when Beavis & Butthead went on the Gus Baker show

idea stolen from tombot obv

i must have been sleeping because I totally didn't realize what a fucko Joel Surnow is.

wow, and we thought we'd seen the laziest of lazy zings before...

But as often occurs on Fox's "24" -- the other program that " 1/2 Hour" executive producer Joel Surnow presides over -- there's a twist: A lot of the creative energy behind the liberal bashing on "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" originated in Berkeley.

Of course, there's something to be said for not being such an easy, constant source of such material, too. But still, does this guy just have your standard persecution/projection complex, or what? What 50 other shows? Is he including Keith Olbermann in this? There's a central RNC-like operation faxing out a regular list of talking points to these 50 shows?

xp

yay! let's bash hippies! that's what all them comedy central shows are about us, so we gotta do the same!

human/animal hybrids?

it already has, to a certain extent. For some inadvertant lolz, check the Politically Incorrect Guide series:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/ThePoliticallyIncorrectGuideToIslam.jpg http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1596980117.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

-- Goodtime Slim, Uncle Doobie, and the Great Frisco Freakout (andrew.bryso...), February 16th, 2007. (bernard snowy)

Actually, I kind of hope for a couple more projects like this. The more damage to the conservative brand, the better.

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/1596985003.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/1596980036.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

These guys really believe all their hyperbolic bullshit about liberals. They also believe in their own martyrdom.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/089526031X.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1596985011.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V46689618_.jpg

http://www.fromthehousetops.com/catalog/images/woods%20-%20history.JPG

it's that mix of self-perceived persecution, lazy anti-intellectualism/ahistoricism, and formless, undirected bile

she is?

We were on the same the side as Russia??

xxpost

One of the first things Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other totalitarians did was rewrite the histories of their nations, remaking the past to foster their control of the present. The American Left has done the same thing in our country: most American history books — both for students and adults — are riddled with PC nonsense that makes the Founding Fathers over into racist slaveholders, the settlers of the West into genocidal land-stealers, and the welfare state into as the harbinger of the ultimate triumph of liberalism.

[...]

Not PC, but all true:

* How colonial quarrels give birth to American religious freedom
* PC myth demolished: the Puritans -- racists? Not quite
* No, the Puritans didn’t steal Indian lands
* Why self-government is non-negotiable
* How the American Revolution was not like the French Revolution, with which Leftists love to equate it
* Why “providing for the general welfare” doesn’t mean that the federal government gets to spend money on whatever it wants
* The forgotten secret of the First Amendment to the Constitution: how states tell the federal government what it’s allowed to do — not the other way around
* The cardinal importance of the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Just because it’s not in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean it’s not a right — and whatever the states didn’t let the feds do was left to the states
* The tiny, easily overlooked clause in the Constitution that proved to be the source of the unhindered growth of big government
* Did the states have the right to secede from the Union? A frank examination of the evidence
* Was the war fought to free slaves? How the Civil War was more about other issues than about slavery
* Reality check: Lincoln’s views on race
* Why the soldiers fought: the Civil War, in the soldiers’ own words
* The Fourteenth Amendment and states’ rights: the truth about this much-misunderstood Amendment
* How government promoted waste and corruption in railroad construction
* How “fairness” crippled American farmers in the late nineteenth century
* Why government is itself the true source of monopoly
* Antitrust idiocy: Should antitrust laws be repealed?
* World War I: why Woodrow Wilson favored war
* The post-World War I peace conference: The disaster Wilson pretended not to notice
* How Woodrow Wilson’s much-heralded “idealism” paved the way for World War II
* The long forgotten truth about the Roaring Twenties
* Herbert Hoover: A “do-nothing” president? If only he had been!
* How the Left in the 1930s cravenly presented the “Soviet experiment” as a model for America
* The New York Times reporter who had full knowledge of Stalin’s crimes but covered them up
* The lunacy of New Deal policies: let’s help starving people by destroying food!
* How FDR’s anti-business zealotry delayed America’s recovery from the Great Depression
* World War II: did it lift America out of the Depression?
* FDR’s imperial presidency: did the architect of the New Deal break the law?
* How FDR got Americans into World War II — and may have made war with Japan inevitable
* FDR and Uncle Joe: the full story of just how friendly President Roosevelt was toward Stalin
* The Cold War: Yes, Soviet spies were a problem in America — contrary to Leftist myth
* Joe McCarthy: a paranoid idiot? No: the facts about this much maligned figure
* A shameful and forgotten episode: American Presidents send a million Russians back to Stalin
* The Marshall Plan: a great success or another failed giveaway program?
* How President Truman disregarded the Constitution
* Who was the real John F. Kennedy? Straight talk about a figure who has been elevated to mythic status by the Left
* How Chicago mobster Sam Giancana bankrolled JFK’s campaign in return for promises that Kennedy would help his mob dodge federal investigations
* Lyndon Johnson: his terrible legacy of failure
* How the liberalism of the 1960s discouraged all the right things and encouraged all the wrong ones
* Ronald Reagan: how he differed from all other modern presidents
* “Decade of Greed”? How charitable giving grew 55 percent faster during the 1980s than it had grown over the previous 25 years
* How Bill Clinton abused power, abetted Islamists, lied, and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars for nothing
* Affirmative Action lunacy: how, on Clinton’s watch, special permission was needed at the Pentagon for the promotion of all white men without disabilities

of course, it's always fun that the standard attacks on Wilson tend to highlight shit that neoconservatives pushed thru, etc

Politically Inc Guide to America History

Hasn't this been roundly discredited as an error-prone tome full of unsupported assertions and cherry-picked facts?

(SHOCKAH)

Science has been politicized—not by the Right, but by the Left, which sees global warming, Darwinism, stem cell research, and innumerable other issues as tools to advance its agenda (and in many cases expand the reach of government).

When liberals trot out scientists with white coats, debate is supposed to be silenced. But many of the high priests of science have something to hide—from blind intolerance of religion to jealous guarding of their federally financed research budgets...

and here's the NPR/Slate thing debunking the anti-history book

http://www.parade.com/images/2007/0211/Main021107.jpg

The Uzbeck leader is on there, but isn't the guy from Turkmenistan also a real good candidate?

Uh, check the dude on the left.

Those books.

Weept.

isn't it distintly odd that they use this terminology. i can't fathom it.

It's like they finally grabbed onto the postmordernism/relativism that they decried for decades when they figured out they could use it as a club. There are no objective truths or facts, only a battle of opinions. Empiric reality doesn't matter, since facts & opinions are the same.

xp exactly

OTM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These guys are the ULTIMATE relativists, they're not even aware of it most of the time.

But. That's a lot of layers of irony/ self-awareness that aren't evident elsewhere in that sketch; more than one layer anyway, which is as deep as the other jokes go at best. Specifically that RL line about the U.S.'s international reputation being a shambles after two years of a Democratic congress, cough cough. I almost think that the intent of the AC punchline was nothing more than "tweaking the left again with that great un-pc line about invading others people's countries,"
without the understanding of what they were actually suggesting. Could be wrong, but she says "invade your countries" instead of "invade your country," so it kinda looks like the latter case.

Very strange with this book -- Slate and the NY Times attack it for being too conservative and go on about how it's indicative of this and that and Hannity and so forth. But the conservatives who are attacking it seem to have a better point: the guy is not a conservative thinker, he's a bleedin' Confederate thinker. Total wack job. Didn't Slate of the Times read the book? There's your lead right there.

link to the RL/AC bit

That's right. A lot of conservative humor is based on the idea of offending liberal pc sensibilities, "throwing down the gauntlet."

"I just raped a bunch of baby seals"
"Har. Har. That'll really get 'em going."

All they need is like one disproving review, and it's "OMG, the liberal MSM went batshit crazy! Har har!"

That is, like, 80% of conservative humor.

To be fair, this distinction has been deliberately blurred for decades, from the segregation folks to the southern strategy to the "red state" thing.

Dude does tip his hand a bit much w/ the johnny reb officer on the cover.

They released "Female Chauvinist Pigs" with a different cover in America, then.

* Women’s lib has “liberated” men from having to commit, “freed” women from marriage, and often “unshackled” women from having a family.
* More than ever, women in their twenties and thirties live alone, are discarded by boyfriends after “living together,” and are watching their biological clocks tick past the point of no return.
* Women still prefer men who are breadwinners and can protect them physically.

TICK TICK TICK.

Silly 21st-Century feminists, burning their expensive bras & all that.

See what LUGs and vibrators hath wrought?

In that case that's gotta be the most OMGWTF-cosmically-insane thing ever, that Coulter and writers didn't get that she inadvertantly threatened to invade the U.S., kill U.S. leaders, convert U.S. citizens to Christianity, and so on. Mind blown, etc..

Uh, wtf, Dom, that book is nothing like what Ariel Levy is arguing.

But rightwingers on TV have a higher calling, you see, rather just really lazy and half-assed swipes at funnier people. They should get "get another shot at entertaining our own troops via TV and demonstrating that conservatives do, after all, possess a sense of humor."

Unfortunately, his tips for improving the show don't actually include "TAKE OUT THE RETARDED LAFFTRACK".

She isn't a leftist wacko. Maybe she is now. But back then she wasn't. Guess she is more an Indepedent.
posted by: on 10.17.04 at 07:22 PM [permalink]

And, uh, this...

what's up with the scar...if Tina is so gosh darn funny why doesn't she write a skit about that ax wound on her left cheek?
posted by: chris on 04.25.04 at 11:20 PM [permalink]

_____________________________________________________

Tina Fey is waiting for her Barbara Walter's special to tell us about her rape scar. This will cement a reverential and protective attitude towards her to the american public, allowing her to bombard us with further mediocrity for years to come.

In her crazy biz, even a knife rape is used for marketing leverage.

Tina, why are you in a business like that? Look what you've turned into.

Pimping your own rape scar!
posted by: Caterwall on 06.04.04 at 06:35 PM [permalink]

That is, like, 80% of conservative humor.

This mentality always reminded me of the stuff internet trolls say to convince themselves that they're funny.

Also, I'm pasting this here, since it fits in with the rest of what we've been talking about:

It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That's because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues...

JEd Babbin, who hasn't actually seen anything yet:

But the best part is that Ann Coulter -- yes, our Ann, HUMAN EVENTS legislative correspondent -- is in it. Is it funny? One gent e-mailed me to say that, "Critics are already calling it 'the funniest show ever produced by the FOX News Channel, not counting Geraldo.'"

Pop the corn, pour the wine, sit back and watch. Step aside, libs. It’s our turn.

she is?

guys this has been obvious for YEARS

which is why some people always talk about wanting to fuck her

And then what does that audience get? A few laughs, a few telling jabs, a few comments that hit the mark so well that you'll want to repeat them to your friends. For instance, in the "newscast" segment that dominates the shows, there's a segment about that little rascal, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying (and I paraphrase from memory here): "And in other news, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke about the recent Holocaust Denial Conference in Teheran -- and denied that it ever happened. And if it did take place, he said that the number of participants had been greatly exaggerated."

HAR HAR HAR!

Oh good, because you know there ain't shit on TV Sunday night at that time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IrzwxbL7iU&mode=related&search=

But I do think there was a laugh-tracked O'Reilly clip before. Maybe even this one.

I don't understand. What do you mean? What are "comments"?

that joke could be on the daily show easy.

The minute or two I saw during commercials was beneath contempt.

-- teasing your poultry (fluxion2...), February 19th, 2007. (later)

Idi Amin: "i got you a political prisoner but i eated it."

It's the same reason Air America has never turned a profit. Revenge humor is rarely humorous.

Really? their sales staff couldn't do jack and their stupid mgmt didn't replace them?

oh jesus f'in christ, yes, of COURSE, there's obvious publicized evidence that HRC is damn near SLATHERING over the prospect of gaining power, JUST to stack the courts, agencies, and various departments with her praetorian legions of lesbo-cronies. Give me a fucking break.

Of course, this give an amusing image is a southern foghorn leghorn-style senator address a senate panel about "the growing threat of lesbo-cronies in our midst, gentlemen!" like something out of Bloom County.

also, the lesbo joke is mentioned up thread. Where's that image of radical animal rights ecoterrorists that somebody found, with the angry lobster and the unshaven hippie chick w/ a gasoline can?

http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/12/animalrights.jpg

lobster with angry eyebrows! Suicidal bomber owl!

close, but i think the tattoo is more of a kitty/wolf thing

Surnow and his friend Ann Coulter—the conservative pundit, and author of the pro-McCarthy book “Treason”—talked about creating a conservative response to George Clooney’s recent film “Good Night, and Good Luck.” Surnow said, “I thought it would really provoke people to do a movie that depicted Joe McCarthy as an American hero or, maybe, someone with a good cause who maybe went too far.”

I feel like the way this idea is framed is very revealing, and kind of ties in with what that review linked above says about the show actively trying to wring humor from things rather than looking for naturally-occurring humor. Notice that he doesn't say that he, specifically, sees Joe McCarthy as a tragic figure deserving of sympathy, or would like to reform the public perception of him; he simply thinks it would "provoke people" (see also: Barack Obama race jokes, reheated Ann Coulter foot-in-mouthisms, etc). I realize that this basically just confirms what everyone else has already said, but it's still kind of amazing (to me) to see just how straightforward his thought process is.

Not only that, but as a direct response to Clooney's out-there liberalism. HE'S MAD AS HELL AND HE'S NOT GOING TO USE REASON ANYMORE.

But, as said earlier on this thread and elsewhere, modern conservatism is pretty much boiled down to "we'll get those dirty hippies" and little else.

Of course, there are those who call for the hanging of all traitors, then start talking about people who disagree with Dear Leader...

destroy everything else

-- m coleman (writeco...), February 19th, 2007. (lovebug )

really? i think the liberals are chuckling as they read the conservatives talking about piss poor the whole thing is. schadenfreude, etc. i have yet to see any 'inflamed' liberals.

It's really scary that these assholes hold policy positions and get listened to at the highest levels.

^- this thing's s'posed to be like a rightwing Onion, right?

Meanwhile, more comedy, courtesy of them hiring Michelle Malkin. I'm hoping that they give an hour-long show to each TownHall poster, just for full entertainment value.

Did anybody ever see the 2nd ep of this? Apparently more are on the way...