I Wear Pants;944505 wrote:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-18-2011/scorn-in-the-u-s-a-


Any conservatives care to explain why the tone about how it's the duty of Americans to protest has radically changed to "we shouldn't be pitting Americans against each other"? Or is it just because conservatives think these people support different solutions than them?

I Wear Pants;944518 wrote:I noticed you picked up on only the things that were silly comedy in the video and not, you know, the very valid arguments and examples of hypocrisy within the Republican party.

As for who watches him, a quick search told me that in May of this year he averaged 2.3 million viewers. So a lot of people.

Manhattan Buckeye;944612 wrote:A lot of people watch Two and a Half Men, it's still a crappy show. There are many ways to parody the Republican party. Saturday Night Live did a great job in '88 (Carvey as GHWB, Aykroyd as Dole, Franken as Robertson, Hartman as Kemp and Nealon as DuPont). That wasn't it. The link you posted was a comedic disaster. Jon Stewart might as well put on a motley costume and dance around Obama saying "derp, de derp de derp", even better with William & Mary colors. That was the exact opposite of funny.

I Wear Pants;944518 wrote:I noticed you picked up on only the things that were silly comedy in the video and not, you know, the very valid arguments and examples of hypocrisy within the Republican party.

As for who watches him, a quick search told me that in May of this year he averaged 2.3 million viewers. So a lot of people.

queencitybuckeye;944700 wrote:"A lot" is relative. 2.3 million viewers is the equivalent to 8 people in a room of a thousand. The term "practically no one" is just as accurate.

I Wear Pants;944691 wrote:You asked how many people watch the show, I answered.

And me thinks you didn't really understand the clip because you have a preconceived "I hate what Jon Stewart says" attitude about it.

You posting "now he's doing your mom's so ugly" jokes tells me you weren't paying attention. Because he wasn't making your mom jokes but making a comparison to Holder. If Stewart is the retarded liberal then you're the uptight retarded conservative with the series of posts you just made. No need to get so worked up about a satire show.

Manhattan Buckeye;944707 wrote:I paid attention enough to get to that part of the link, seriously, that was a late-term abortion of being funny. I'm all for political satire, I'm also for reality. Jon Stewart isn't funny.

I Wear Pants;944711 wrote:It would seem a lot of people disagree.

Either way, I posted it for the "seriously you're a bunch of hypocrites" content and not the humor, which you've completely ignored apparently.

I Wear Pants;944711 wrote:It would seem a lot of people disagree.

Either way, I posted it for the "seriously you're a bunch of hypocrites" content and not the humor, which you've completely ignored apparently.

I Wear Pants;944711 wrote:It would seem a lot of people disagree.

queencitybuckeye;944719 wrote:8 people of 1000 disagree. That leaves 992.

Manhattan Buckeye;944718 wrote:What? I understand the lack of humor, that was evident in your link. There was nothing funny about it. It is just Jon Stewart being a douche making faces in the camera with an audience politely laughing.

queencitybuckeye;944719 wrote:8 people of 1000 disagree. That leaves 992.

I Wear Pants;945016 wrote:Why do you keep trying to make me saying "a lot" relative? It isn't. 2.3 million people is in my opinion a lot of people doing one thing.

Manhattan, once again, you comment on what you perceive as a lack of humor which is fair enough. But I was posting it for the juxtaposition of clips of Republicans/conservatives heralding the Tea Party rallies and protests as great examples of Americans voicing their concerns about overreaching government, etc. Yet mere months later they are calling the OWS protest and rallies "dangerous", etc when they too deride too large of government (in some same, some different ways). What changed? How are they not hypocrites? (Likewise goes for any Dem that said the Tea Parties were dangerous and now praise the OWS events). How is this hypocrisy allowed to go without someone calling anybody on it?

I Wear Pants;945016 wrote:Why do you keep trying to make me saying "a lot" relative? It isn't. 2.3 million people is in my opinion a lot of people doing one thing.

queencitybuckeye;945025 wrote:In my opinion, a lot begins at 7.4 million.

What do you mean it's not relative?

Seriously, whether something is large (or "a lot") can only be determined in context. A million dollars is a lot of money to me. To Gates or Buffett? I'd argue not.

I Wear Pants;945066 wrote:I guarantee if you ask either of those guys if a million dollars is a lot they will say "yes".

It isn't relative in that a large quantity is still a large quantity even if there are much larger quantities out there.

If we cut a billion dollars from the deficit that's a shit ton of money, sure it is small in comparison to a trillion dollars but I don't think everything needs qualified like that. I don't look at someone's 70 inch tv and say "that's not a big tv because the display in Cowboy Stadium is 3924839082498 times larger". That'd be stupid.

queencitybuckeye;945025 wrote:In my opinion, a lot begins at 7.4 million.

What do you mean it's not relative?

Seriously, whether something is large (or "a lot") can only be determined in context. A million dollars is a lot of money to me. To Gates or Buffett? I'd argue not.

I Wear Pants;945087 wrote: If you're too stupid to realize that a 70 inch television is big, a million dollars is a lot of money, or that 2.3 million people is a **** load of folks