Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqKCbtO9erQ Here is a link to Bill Mahr. Is he being a comedian or is he making a political commentary? What is the difference between what he does and what Coulter does? Has Mahr ever crossed the line in your view? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40OaR1ZO8LA |
well, ann coulter as a political force who sells books that people read to be "better informed" is idiotic. does not compute.
ann coulter as a comedian/pundit i just don't care for. she's not laid back smooth funny, she's screaming harpy banshee stuck-up-bitch-in-high-school click "funny." not my style. if that's what you like, fair enough. i wouldn't like what it said about me if i found that funny. i'm (perhaps obviously) all about some "coarse" humor; but she is fucking mean in the way she does it. i can't really listen to her. its sort of like the old saying that a whisper is louder than a yell sometimes. all i see is some crazy bitch in a tizzy about something or the other, and i can't tune her in or take her seriously. its more along the lines of 'can someone shut this crazy bitch up so i can hear the ayn rand institute guy speak?" |
If it bends, it's funny...if it breaks, it's not.
Finesse is important. |
Quote:
I see her as a comedian. I do not see her as a policy maker, or as a person who shapes cultural norms. I see Rush Limbaugh in the same way. Mike Dicka, on the other-hand, is like a god among men, and should be worshiped. |
1) SNL, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report are comedies first and foremost. Ann's articles don't run in the funny pages, they run in the Op Ed. What they do is called satire, or the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. Their primary function is to poke fun at things like politics, as is made clear in the Pelosi video from SNL. She's making fun of the suggestion that some Republicans make that Pelosi represents "San Francisco values", which is a tremendously bigoted remark. Like Stephen Colbert, she is acting in a way characterized by the right in order to poke holes in the logic.
Bill Maher is a political comedian. And he's damned funny. Just like Jon Stewart, he's there to make you laugh, then to make you think, then to get invited to the Playboy mansion. It's rare that Ann doesn't cross a line, not only by being madly bigoted, but by misinformation. In the article above, for example: Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
On Youtube, there is a video on Mahr talking about religion. Take a look and let me know what you think. I do understand about Coulter. You take her serious, and don't perceive her work as humor. I think it is humor, nor do I take her serious. What about Rosie on the view, what is that? What is she? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Does that answer your question? Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
What do you eat at tailgate parties? Quote:
P.S. I hope you realize, I am just toying with you. I need to go to a new thread, because I can not take this one serious. |
ace, ace, ace: you're being disengenuous again. coulter is not a satirist. her writing is not smart enough to be satire.
do you read any actual satirists? i'd suggest that you try out nathaniel west. satire requires finesse. it requires a certain distance between the author, the narrator and the storyline. it also requires that the reader do a little work to sort out what is going on. so the key to satire from this little potted summary of genre markers is the assumption that the reader is (a) not stupid and (b) is willing to work a bit to decipher what is happening. you cannot possibly imagine that ann coulter does not assume her readership is stupid. the outlets that publish her certainly assume that her readership is not made up of the shed's sharpest tools, or the chandelier's brightest bulbs. maybe that's her appeal though: she is able to participate in a kind of circle jerk, the effect of which is to enable her one-dimensional readership to imagine itself superior to those whom they oppose politically. she achieves this lofty literary function by a unique combination of bad style, bad concept, bad jokes, bigotry and smugness. quite the poster girl for your politics in ann coulter, ace. what i find ironic in any defense from the right of an idiot the level of ann coulter comes up when you link this to the views harbored by conservatives on education---you know, the emphasis on "quality", on "standards" and all that. apparently, the right has a very particular understanding of what these terms mean---no wait, it is the same understanding that the right has of "personal responsibility": both only apply to other people. it follows then: if you disagree with a writer's politics, no grammar mistake is too small..but when you agree with the writer's politics, it hardly matters whether that writer is a fucking cretin or not. all bets are off--(in this case) she is one of "us" so anything goes. besides, coulter serves an important function in legitimating the populist conservative embrace of their inner nimrod, their inner frat boy, their inner bigot. it must be a relief to be able to check thinking at the door when you encounter one of coulter's pieces....if i wanted to do that. i'd have stayed in school..."reality" shouldn't require that much work...phew, all this thinking i have to do....it makes me tired. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
ace--look, i wasnt and still am not interested in any pissing match with you, since what irks me here is not you but ann coulter: that she is, that she has a forum, and worse that she has an audience with which her idiotic positions appear to resonate. i probably should have taken out the opening line altogether, the one which made it appear as though the whole post was aimed at you when it wasnt. or drawn a line or something.
the main point was in the last paragraphs in any event: the curious assymtery between conservative positions on education and "standards" on the one hand, and the resonance that a fuckwit of ann coulter's epic proportions has in that world. kinda tough to square that one. as for the stooges: i dont know where the problem with them might be: they dont pretend to be or do anything other than what they do (well, did...) when they tried political commentary--like the shorts involving that great map of the world and moe dressed as hitler and curly as mussolini--it was stupid and obvious and kinda funny, in the way that the stooges are always stupid and obvious and kinda funny. i was a fan when i was a kid. i am less a fan now, but that's mostly because of repetition--the three stooges are like the beatles in that way--through no fault of their own (in either case) i have trouble with what they do because i have been saturated with it and the boredom that follows comes from saturation. it is a shame too because in both cases this is not the relation to this material that i would prefer to have, and sometimes i feel like repetition has taken something from me. but that's maybe a personal quirk. who knows? for what its worth, my favorite comedies are jacques tati's monsieur hulot films (mr. hulot's vacation, mon oncle, playtime) i dont watch them too often because i love them and really want to be able to still love them. this in the end is what growing up with the stooges taught me. as for nathaniel west--you are in a curiously fortunate position not knowing about his writing (miss lonleyhearts in particular) because you can, if you like, have a treat. and treats are good. everybody likes treats, i think. maybe you'll like this one. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
roach: the repetition problem. its not just you. first it stole my huey lewis and the news, but i didn't mind because i was 12. then it took phish, well the repetition and the assholes who started in after the dead died. frankly, it took the dead. then it took bob marley. oh, overexposure killed south park and a lot of my other favorites. i hope i can get them back with time and chemical enhancement, but i suppose we shall see. could it ever be like the first time again?
and mixed: i'll vouch for the brat thing. they really can be quite delectable when grilled. its more of a midwestern thing. i would actually take a brat over a hotdog these days. oh, to stay on thread: fuck ann coulter. but don't tell her i said so, because i'd rather that attention whore fall off the radar, personally. |
A.) I find Ann Coulter to be much on the same par as Michael Moore. Neither one is to be taken seriously, and...if you don't...both of 'em are a hoot. Intentional, or not. So point and laugh, boys...point and laugh.
B.) Brats rock my world. Mixedmedia? Do yourself a favor. Go get yourself a brat. And not one of those nasty Johnsonville things, either. Them ain't brats. C.) Larrry, Moe and Curly (or Shemp...or Curly Joe) were comedy geniuses. Stooges...rule! D.) While I do enjoy a good Chardonnet, or a Cabernet, there are times when only a Miller Genuine Draft is gonna cut the mustard. Especially with a brat. So...have a brat...and an MGD...during a Three Stooges marathon, and after...we'll all point and laugh at Ann and Michael. That sounds like Sunday afternoon to me. Provided, of course, the Pirates aren't playing. ;) |
MGD?! With a proper brat? At least get a Sammy Boston Ale.
Jeez. You might as well have a Corona Light and a Oscar Meyer hot dog. |
Sam Adams has it's place in my 'fridge. But with a kraut covered, ketchup drippin' brat, hot off the grill...I'll grab for the MGD.
|
Wait.
Ketchup on a hot dog? Brat...whatever...ketchup? That's just wrong. |
mgd? good god no. i'd rather drink water. but i'd be an affable guy who drinks water, so invite me for the brats, ok? o yeah--i'll fix em myself. no ketchup please--too sweet. and too freakishly red. thanks.
|
It's all subjective. Bill Maher is unfunny and just as bad as Coulter in my opinion. Carlos Mencia is way down there too along with Sarah Silverman. None of them are funny nor to be taken seriously. If you are taking your political cues from the above then you may have serious problems. John Stewart and Bill Maher take themselves way too seriously, I don't think they think of themeselves as comedians until they hide behind that label after biting off more than they can chew.
However, Steven Colbert is a freakin' genius and wipes his ass regularly with the above. I don't really understand why everyone is picking on Ace and condescending to him. SNL was good for the 90's, at least for the first 3/4. Shame. |
I'm not suggesting it has anything to do with how funny they are. I'm saying it goes to intent. Jon Stewart is here to make you laugh first and foremost, and if you happen to learn something, great! Ann Coulter thinks she is here to teach you something first and foremost, and if you happen to laugh, great! I hope everyone understands the stark difference between those two perspectives and the meaning of those perspectives to their messages.
Carlos Mencia isn't worthy to lick my shit. That son of a bitch has the balls to steal word for word from Pryor? I hope he gets raped in prison. |
Interesting point will, intent is critical, I can agree with that.. But I do think it is harder to "prove" intent.
|
I don't think anyone was picking on Ace or being condescending to him. I think he's a big boy and he handles himself very well.
|
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18564159/ Quote:
Too bad someone didn't remind him to say that Bush killed the other 9,990. |
That doesn't make him stupid. It makes him a politician who is too eager to jump on things that make other people look bad...kind of like just about every other politician I know of.
|
Quote:
Stewart can be good when he's trying to be serious and when he's trying to be funny. Problem is, he's inconsistent in both modes. When he's on, he's on. When he's not, I switch to Futurama reruns. And yeah, when he does that "I'm a comedian" retreat from serious comments, he annoyingly reminds me of Coulter. Colbert is great, but he's had mediocre days like Stewart, and he doesn't have a couple talented correspondants to fall back on when that happens. Stewart's got Oliver, if no one else. There's this guy on another board I frequent - he's mostly liberal in his beliefs - who insists that Coulter is a brilliant political satirist. Meaning, of course, that she does great satire of the right, a la Colbert. I'd have to admit, it'd be genius if she was actually an American version of Borat. |
Quote:
I suppose this also ruins his credibility from when he was President of the Harvard Law Review as well? |
I think it's funny a Republican is calling Obama on his misspeaking. Can we perhaps think about how many time Republicans have defended Bush insisting that, just because his ability to speak doesn't even rival Forest Gump with a mouth full of peanut butter, he is still intelligent?
Would you like me to create a comparative list of grammatical blunders between President Bush and Senator Obama? I'm sure the list will be frighteningly one sided, but it may help to provide perspective. |
i have to say that i find the idea of coulter as a satirist of the right to be vaguely funny--although it seems also like a generalization of the reaction that i have when i read anything she puts out, which comes down to "you must be joking..."
the only problem with this really is that i am not convinced that she is joking and have never seen or read her presented as a comedian--obviously i have seen and read her being described as a joke--but this in no way implies that this involves any intent either on her part or on that of the outlets that publish her. so i dont understand how it got effectively decided that she was, in fact, a comedian at all. so none of the comparisons between her and others who present themselves as comedians make any sense... but maybe it doesnt matter. no, it definitely doesnt matter. |
She's not a comedian. She's a self-styled political commentator who uses humor (or what she regards as humor) as part of her "commentary." I've read enough of her stuff (not even all that much) to conclude it's all an act, and a very lucrative one for her. I don't read her anymore. Even Al Franken is funnier than she is, and he is nowhere near as funny as he used to be.
|
Quote:
|
The bottom line for me is, Ann Coulter's views are never presented as humourous or satirical. She may use humour, but as far as I can tell, it's used in service of making her actual points. Which are hateful and evil. Colbert, on the other hand, uses satire to make light of various situations - he may say something mildly offensive, but it's obvious that it is satirical.
|
Quote:
Is this an example of Affirmative Action.... the SCOTUS determined (and ordered...) in 1955 that public schools act with "reasonable speed" to provide access to education without regard to any student's race or ethnicity, and....two full years later, Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas responded to the attempts of nine students of a race that he was prejudiced against....and wanted to keep separated from students of race[s] that he favored.....the attempts of the nine students to attend a high school, by ordering Arkansas's national guard troops to prevent entry to the high school, of the nine students: Quote:
....or..... is this an example of Affirmative Action?......in 1973, a graduate of a prestigious Ivy league university, only a "C" student, gains admission to one of the premier MBA programs, in the country, at another Ivy league university, as other candidates with better undergraduate grades than the "C" student, are denied admission, and it appears likely that the admitted student was favored because his father, a former congressman, was US Ambassador to the UN, and his grandfather was a former US senator from the neighboring state, and other close relatives had also attended the admitting Ivy league university.... or.....is this an example....a few years later, a young man with an undergraduate degree from yet another Ivy League college, applied and was accepted, apparently on the strength of his grades and aptitude, with the possibility that his status as a member of a minority race was also a positive consideration, into one of the top Ivy league university law schools in the US. This student was elected editor of the most prestigious law school law review in the US, and graduated from the school, magna cum laude....an example of "Affirmative" Action? Are any of my three examples, what you describe as "Affirmative Action", Marv? Are they all examples? Which one(s) do you think are positive examples? Which ones do you disagree with, or view as unfair or unnecessary? I found the middle example....the one where the graduate with only average grades, but all the advantages and connections that being a member of a prominent, politically connected, wealthy family, can predictably bring an applicant for just about any opportunity.....a "leg up", over even better qualified, but "networkless" applicants, particularly objectionable.... How 'bout you? |
Quote:
http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO51553/ Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bullshit emanating from Tony Snow aside, here is more neutral reporting that described a month ago.....and back in January, the risks to Kansas if a severe tornado struck, what Kansas's Governor was attempting to do to lessen the problem for her state, and it described the poorly equipped status of US based national guard units: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All that exists is a sharing plan for neighboring states, all averaging just 56 percent of former guard equipment levels, to try to fill in the gaps to cope with sudden weather related and other disaster related emergencies. Ignoring the need to budget money now to replace the equipment sent to Iraq where it wears out more quickly in the harsh conditions there, and ignoring the need to add to the scarce and overburdened remaining equipment here in the US, makes the yearly increase in total federal treasury debt appear to be less than the $500 billion plus, that it now averages, just as supplemental appropriation requests, instead of budgeting for the predicted expensed in the ongoing six year war in Afghanistan and four year long war in Iraq, allows Bush to claim in his yearly SOTU addresses, that his administration is "reducing the budget deficit". The intent is to pawn this guard equipment shortfall, and the Iraq war itself, onto the next presidential administration, right next to the Bush commitment to "rebuild" New Orleans..... |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project