W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Oct 25, 2011 7:16am
Care to explain why one person or show's views are taken as the thoughts for all Americans/conservatives/liberals?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?
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Oct 25, 2011 9:16am
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.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Oct 25, 2011 9:25am
I like the daily show. I also have no problem with the protest as long as it remains peaceful. I dont agree with it for the most part but they do have the right to voice their frustrations just as tea party people do. No need to be so uptight about a fake news show on comedy central.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Oct 25, 2011 11:19am
You asked how many people watch the show, I answered.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.
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.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Oct 25, 2011 11:25am
"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;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.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Oct 25, 2011 11:27am
A lot is not relative. I didn't say anything about a proportion of viewers merely that it was a lot. If I have 8/1000 of $300,000,000 I'd consider that a lot. Just as 2.3 million people doing anything is a lot.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.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Oct 25, 2011 11:30am
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;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.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Oct 25, 2011 11:33am
It would seem a lot of people disagree.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.
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.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Oct 25, 2011 11:38am
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.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.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Oct 25, 2011 11:38am
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.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.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Oct 25, 2011 12:17pm
8 people of 1000 disagree. That leaves 992.I Wear Pants;944711 wrote:It would seem a lot of people disagree.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 25, 2011 1:38pm
It's even less than 8/1000 if you don't include unemployed people who have nothing better to do.queencitybuckeye;944719 wrote:8 people of 1000 disagree. That leaves 992.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 25, 2011 3:21pm
Doesn't hold a candle to Bill Maher. Maher can say the most idiotic and inaccurate (when he's not flat lying) thing and get a roar of applause. I don't know, maybe that's what it would be like if Rush Limbaugh had a live audience.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.
Pretty funny when you think about it. Both Maher and Rush appear to be pretty smart guys, so you have to think they don't believe half of what they're saying, but play this part of "champion" all the way to the bank. Literally the porn stars of "journalism".
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Oct 25, 2011 3:57pm
Maybe im strange but I like listening/ watching people I disagree with more than those I agree with.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Oct 25, 2011 4:04pm
http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2011/10/25/barack-obama-led-occupychicago-circa-1988/
my oh my, imagine that .........
change we can believe in ....
my oh my, imagine that .........
change we can believe in ....
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Oct 25, 2011 4:13pm
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;944719 wrote:8 people of 1000 disagree. That leaves 992.
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?
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Oct 25, 2011 4:19pm
The same way the media and leftists said, during the height of the wars, that protesting those wars was "patriotic" and that dissent was the most patriotic thing you can do -- and then use all the power they have to try and disparage Tea Party and conservative protesters as "bigots" "nut cases" "pro violence" "gun toting" "Bible hugging" and dangerous.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?
Leftists always claim protests are patriotic -- unless they don't like the message. Then they and their allies in the media do everything they can to discredit the movement and destroy it.
See how that works?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Oct 25, 2011 4:20pm
In my opinion, a lot begins at 7.4 million.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.
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
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Oct 25, 2011 4:42pm
I guarantee if you ask either of those guys if a million dollars is a lot they will say "yes".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.
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.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Oct 25, 2011 4:44pm
Without context, what constitutes a "large quantity"? You just mentioned 70 as a large number. So 70 is always a large number?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.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Oct 25, 2011 4:49pm
Are you deliberately trying to be a moron?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Oct 25, 2011 4:52pm
Do you always resort to name-calling when you're being owned?
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Oct 25, 2011 4:55pm
"Owned", now I know you're trolling. Or 11 years old.
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 shit load of folks without someone holding your hand to explain to you what is a small, average, and large quantity of everything on the planet then it begs the question how you even managed to turn your computer on.
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 shit load of folks without someone holding your hand to explain to you what is a small, average, and large quantity of everything on the planet then it begs the question how you even managed to turn your computer on.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Oct 25, 2011 5:22pm
John Stewart gets more viewers than Letterman, Leno, or Conan.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.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 25, 2011 5:37pm
Then does that make Limbaugh more relevant and accurate because of his 20M listeners?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