Not for the humor impaired - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 05-08-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Tell me, is the whole of Ann's writings in the OP? No? Then that's a strawman.

You mean SNL? I didn't see it. Do you have a link?

Yes, Saturday Night Live. Here is the link:

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

pig · 05-08-2007, 07:38 AM

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?"

mixedmedia · 05-08-2007, 07:41 AM

If it bends, it's funny...if it breaks, it's not.

Finesse is important.

aceventura3 · 05-08-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

So, conservatives on the board: Is Ann Coulter just a comedian who we shouldn't take seriously? Or do her views represent conservatism in any way?

She makes a living by making fun of liberals. I would bet that she has conservative beliefs. I would also bet some see her as a comedian (perhaps comedian is not the best word for what she is, but whatever she is, there are people on both sides who do what she does) and some she her as something more.

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.

Willravel · 05-08-2007, 07:45 AM

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:

In addition to not being a country, the "European Union" happens to be composed of people who hate our guts. It is the continent where Moveon.org-style lunatics are the friendly, pro-American types and the rest are crazy Muslims.

'crazy Muslims'. I'm an atheist and I thought that was bigoted. I've never heard Bill Maher mak a sweeping statement about a race, gender, or creed. If she was trying to be funny, which is possible, she might consider the fact that not even the blue collar comedy tour is comfortable using a phrase like 'crazy muslims'.

aceventura3 · 05-08-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

If it bends, it's funny...if it breaks, it's not.

Finesse is important.

So you don't like the Three Stooges? You don't think those were the funniest shorts of the 20th century? I am shocked, totally shocked. If it doesn't break, how can it be funny??? Finesse, in comedy, are you a "wine and cheese" kinda person or beer and brats? That answer could explain alot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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:

'crazy Muslims'. I'm an atheist and I thought that was bigoted. I've never heard Bill Maher mak a sweeping statement about a race, gender, or creed. If she was trying to be funny, which is possible, she might consider the fact that not even the blue collar comedy tour is comfortable using a phrase like 'crazy muslims'.

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?

mixedmedia · 05-08-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So you don't like the Three Stooges?

No

Quote:

You don't think those were the funniest shorts of the 20th century?

HELL NO. I'm more the Buster Keaton type.

Quote:

I am shocked, totally shocked. If it doesn't break, how can it be funny???

Oh, I don't know, by being smart?

Quote:

Finesse, in comedy, are you a "wine and cheese" kinda person or beer and brats? That answer could explain alot.

Can't say that I've ever eaten a brat, but I was a beer person until I puked my guts out for two days after overdosing on some brown gelatinous muck fed to me by a bartender who thought I was almost as cute as Ann Coulter. Of course, I'm speculating there. But now I drink wine...although I'd prefer a margarita any day of the week.

Does that answer your question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 37OHSSV

I may be new here, but is this no longer in effect? I wouldn't categorize the OP as satire. Humor, maybe, but not fictional, and not a made-up joke. The cartoon, however ...

The guidelines are intended to prevent threads from being started in the Tilted Politics forum of which the sole intent is to pass along jokes and humorous images. Not as an outright ban on humor or images being interjected into an otherwise appropriate conversation.

aceventura3 · 05-08-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

No

HELL NO. I'm more the Buster Keaton type.

Oh, I don't know, by being smart?

So, you measure intelligence by the type of comedy a person likes? Has Mensa heard about this new form of a measure of intelligence? Were you being funny, or just cruel to Stooges fans? Is this a left/right thing, Keeton v. Stooges? So many questions.

Quote:

Can't say that I've ever eaten a brat

Are you American?

What do you eat at tailgate parties?

Quote:

, but I was a beer person until I puked my guts out for two days after overdosing on some brown gelatinous muck fed to me by a bartender who thought I was almost as cute as Ann Coulter. Of course, I'm speculating there. But now I drink wine...although I'd prefer a margarita any day of the week.

Does that answer your question?

Yes.

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.

roachboy · 05-08-2007, 08:23 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 05-08-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace, ace, ace: you're being disengenuous again. coulter is not a satirist. her writing is not smart enough to be satire.

I just think she's kinda funny.

I promise to study up on humor, do you recomend any paticular courses?

Willravel · 05-08-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

So you think she, like Maher or Sterart, thinks herself a comedian first and foremost? That's the real question, I suppose: intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What about Rosie on the view, what is that? What is she?

She tries to regurgitate what smart people around her say.

aceventura3 · 05-08-2007, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So you think she, like Maher or Sterart, thinks herself a comedian first and foremost? That's the real question, I suppose: intent.

She tries to regurgitate what smart people around her say.

I went to Coulter's website. She is self described as an author, legal correspondent for Human Events and a sydicated columnist. reading between the lines, I think she also thinks that she is an activist, kinda like Al Sharpton. Perhaps, that explains the picture in the OP. So if she is an activist, I guess she should be taken as serious as Rev. Al.

roachboy · 05-08-2007, 08:41 AM

Quote:

i'd suggest that you try out nathaniel west.

sometimes, ace, it pays to read past the first line of a post.

aceventura3 · 05-08-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

sometimes, ace, it pays to read past the first line of a post.

I read the line, and your whole post. I was thinking a course would be more helpful. I hate to admit ignorance, but I did not even know who Nathaniel West is. So I guess i have to start at ground zero, growing up watching the Stooges must have stunted my appreciation for real humor.

Willravel · 05-08-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I went to Coulter's website. She is self described as an author, legal correspondent for Human Events and a sydicated columnist. reading between the lines, I think she also thinks that she is an activist, kinda like Al Sharpton. Perhaps, that explains the picture in the OP. So if she is an activist, I guess she should be taken as serious as Rev. Al.

And that's just it. If you ask Jon Stewart, he'll tell you he's a comedian first and foremost. Anything else is secondary to that in his role. Ann thinks she's funny, but obviously doesn't consider herself a comedienne.

roachboy · 05-08-2007, 09:39 AM

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.

mixedmedia · 05-08-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, you measure intelligence by the type of comedy a person likes?

Hell, yes.

Quote:

Has Mensa heard about this new form of a measure of intelligence?

I don't give a fuck.

Quote:

Were you being funny, or just cruel to Stooges fans? Is this a left/right thing, Keeton v. Stooges? So many questions.

It's Keaton. And the Stooges ain't fit to fit to spitshine his floppy shoes.

Quote:

Are you American?

What do you eat at tailgate parties?

Quote:

Yes.

Damn skippy.

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.

Oh yes, go, by all means, and stop sullying the sober amosphere and cogent analysis of this thread.

pig · 05-08-2007, 11:57 AM

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.

Bill O'Rights · 05-08-2007, 01:09 PM

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.

Willravel · 05-08-2007, 01:21 PM

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.

Bill O'Rights · 05-08-2007, 01:32 PM

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.

mixedmedia · 05-08-2007, 01:42 PM

Wait.

Ketchup on a hot dog? Brat...whatever...ketchup?

That's just wrong.

roachboy · 05-08-2007, 01:53 PM

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.

jorgelito · 05-08-2007, 08:08 PM

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.

Willravel · 05-08-2007, 09:44 PM

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.

jorgelito · 05-08-2007, 10:17 PM

Interesting point will, intent is critical, I can agree with that.. But I do think it is harder to "prove" intent.

mixedmedia · 05-09-2007, 01:53 AM

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.

Marvelous Marv · 05-09-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

George Bush's Education:

Bush attended Yale University, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1968. By his own characterization, Bush was an average student. Coming out of the army to obtain an MBA from Harvard University, he again received average grades.

Barack Obama's Education:

Obama studied at Occidental College for two years, then transferred to Columbia University, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. He received his B.A. degree in 1983, then worked for one year at Business International Corporation. Afterwards he went to Harvard law and he completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991. He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago from 1993 until 2004.

I have no idea how i could POSSIBLY think Obama was knowledgeable and how his knowledge could apply to his potential presidency... especially that silly "Lecturing constitutional law" to university students for 11 years, or his graduating magna cum laude. I must be confused.

You're not the only one who's confused.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18564159/

Quote:

Obama overstates Kansas tornado deaths
Democratic presidential hopeful says ‘10,000 people died’ instead of 10

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.

The death toll was 12.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

It appears that with all of his education, Obama can't count to ten (or twelve, depending on which report you read). No problem though--ask any believer in Affirmative Action.

Too bad someone didn't remind him to say that Bush killed the other 9,990.

ubertuber · 05-09-2007, 06:42 AM

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.

FoolThemAll · 05-09-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

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 like Silverman, but I've got to admit that she relies almost entirely on shock humor and fails often. Still, I keep coming back, as to a Dilbert comic with one funny moment a week. I don't hate her, so she's a few levels above Mencia in my mind - not that this is hard to accomplish.

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.

skier · 05-09-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

You're not the only one who's confused.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18564159/

It appears that with all of his education, Obama can't count to ten (or twelve, depending on which report you read). No problem though--ask any believer in Affirmative Action.

Too bad someone didn't remind him to say that Bush killed the other 9,990.

Wow, so one small mistake at a campaign rally completely erased all his education to this point? Why is this even a defense? I could point to many small (and large, but those are up to debate) mistakes made by any president, and when it comes to misspeaking at the podium i'm pretty sure President Bush comes out on top.

I suppose this also ruins his credibility from when he was President of the Harvard Law Review as well?

Willravel · 05-09-2007, 09:08 AM

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.

roachboy · 05-09-2007, 09:17 AM

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.

loquitur · 05-09-2007, 01:04 PM

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.

flstf · 05-09-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Too bad someone didn't remind him to say that Bush killed the other 9,990.

Obama's not stupid, the crowd cheered when he said 10,000 died and there is not enough National Guard to help with the tragedy because of the war. It was a partisan fundraiser crowd and 12 probably didn't seem to be enough of a tragedy for his purposes. Maybe if someone would have corrected him he could have said "nevermind" like Rosanna Rosannadanna on SNL.

robot_parade · 05-09-2007, 08:01 PM

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.

host · 05-10-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

You're not the only one who's confused.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18564159/

It appears that with all of his education, Obama can't count to ten (or twelve, depending on which report you read). No problem though--ask any believer in Affirmative Action.

Too bad someone didn't remind him to say that Bush killed the other 9,990.

Marv....I'm not too clear about what constitutes "Affirmative" Action....

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:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/h...9_0294_ZS.html
U.S. Supreme Court
BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
349 U.S. 294

BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.

* No. 1. Reargued on the question of relief April 11-14, 1955. Opinion and judgments announced May 31, 1955.

1. Racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, 347 U.S. 483, 497, and all provisions of federal, state or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle. P. 298.

2. The judgments below (except that in the Delaware case) are reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit the parties to these cases to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed. P. 301.

(a) School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing and solving the varied local school problems which may require solution in fully implementing the governing constitutional principles. P. 299.

(b) Courts will have to consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles. P. 299.....

....(g) While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with the ruling of this Court. P. 300.....
 <center><img src="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civilrights/images/cr0013s.jpg" width= 500 height= 350></center>

Was the 1957 decision of POTUS Eisenhower to enforce the SCOTUS ruling and negate the unlawful orders of Gov. Orval Faubus, by sending US Army troops to protect the nine students of the "other" race, and deliver them safely....every school day for that year, into that high school, "Affirmative" Action, in your opinion, Marv.....

....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?

Marvelous Marv · 05-10-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Obama's not stupid, the crowd cheered when he said 10,000 died and there is not enough National Guard to help with the tragedy because of the war. It was a partisan fundraiser crowd and 12 probably didn't seem to be enough of a tragedy for his purposes. Maybe if someone would have corrected him he could have said "nevermind" like Rosanna Rosannadanna on SNL.

Well, he was either stupid or lying, since he was wrong about the National Guard, too. Sebelius is already admitting that what she said wasn't true.

http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO51553/

Quote:

...At Snow's second, midday briefing with reporters, he offered that it turned out that the state had requested several items that the federal government supplied -- those radios, and also a mobile command center and a mobile office building, an urban search and rescue team and coordination on extra Black Hawk helicopters.

Snow recounted a phone conversation on Tuesday between Sebelius and Bush's White House-based homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, in which the governor said she was pleased with the federal performance on the tornado and had everything she needed.
About the same time, Sebelius was doing her own backpedal from across the country.

Her spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said the governor didn't mean to imply that the state was ill-equipped to deal with this storm. Sebelius' comments about National Guard equipment were, instead, meant as a warning about the state's inability to handle additional disasters, such as another tornado or severe flooding, she said.

"We are doing absolutely fine right now," Corcoran said. "What the governor is talking about is down the road."

Willravel · 05-10-2007, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Well, he was either stupid or lying, since he was wrong about the National Guard, too. Sebelius is already admitting that what she said wasn't true.

AGAIN, considering the current President's ability to speak, you're not willing to forgive one obvious slip up? Or do you think he do it on purpose? If so, why don't you think that Bush and Cheney purposely lied to Congress?

host · 05-10-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Well, he was either stupid or lying, since he was wrong about the National Guard, too. Sebelius is already admitting that what she said wasn't true.

http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO51553/

Hey Marv....I directed my last post at your puzzling comments, and now I'm puzzled by what you had to say in your last post, too. I don't understand what you are talking about in either of your posts.

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:

http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/04/13...training-gaps/
Guard Leaders Urge Solid Funding to Close Equipment, Training Gaps

Apr 13, 2007
BY Ms. Donna Miles, American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON (American Forces Press Service, April 11, 2007) - The National Guard force is second to none in terms of the quality of its people, but severe equipment shortfalls are keeping it from being fully ready, the chief of the National Guard Bureau told Congress today.

Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum urged the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee to support the fiscal 2008 National Guard budget requests to ensure the Guard can continue serving as the country's "21st century Minutemen and -women."

Guard forces deployed overseas are "superbly equipped and superbly trained, ... and we want for nothing," Lt. Gen. Blum told the subcommittee.

But he said the situation at home isn't nearly as rosy. "It's a much different story, and it's not a good story," he said.

"The National Guard today, I am sad to say, is not a fully ready force," the general said. "Unresourced shortfalls still exist that approach $40 billion to provide the equipment and the training that I personally feel your Army and Air National Guard are expected to have to be able to respond to the citizens of the United States."

Lt. Gen. Blum introduced two Guard members who exemplify this gap.

One, an Oregon Air Guard staff sergeant who just completed a third combat tour in Iraq, returned home to his unit to train on equipment built in 1953. "Now imagine being a combat controller in a critical mission like that and operating with unreliable old equipment built in 1953," Lt. Gen. Blum told the subcommittee. "I think that says it all. So while we have the best people, we have some significant equipment challenges."

A Kansas Army Guardsman who accompanied Lt. Gen. Blum to the hearing faces an even more serious issue, he said. Returned from Iraq in November, the Soldier "doesn't have a problem of old equipment," the general said. "He has a problem of no equipment."

His unit, after leaving its own equipment in Iraq for the unit that replaced them, returned home to just two Humvees, both deemed "not good enough to go to war," Lt. Gen. Blum said. "And that's the equipment he has in his unit today."

Should a tornado or other stateside disaster require a Guard mobilization, the unit's ability to respond would be minimized, "not because of the great people in it, but because of the lack of equipment that is in that unit right now," he said.

Lt. Gen. Blum said the problem has reached epidemic levels, particularly in the Army. Most of the units in the Army and Air National Guard are underequipped for the jobs and the missions they have to perform with no notice here at home," he said. "Can we do the job? Yes, we can. But the lack of equipment makes it take longer to do that job, and lost time translates into lost lives, and those lost lives are American lives."

He urged Congress to address these shortfalls, noting the defense bargain the National Guard represents. The Army Guard makes up almost 40 percent of the Army's combat, combat support and combat service support structure, but costs just 11 percent of the Army's budget, he said. Similarly, the Air Guard provides more than one-third of the Air Force capability, at just 6 percent of the Air Force's budget.

"Plus, your Army and Air National Guard are the only Department of Defense forces that can be called upon by the governors with no notice to do what is necessary right here in the zip codes where your constituents reside," he said.

Lt. Gen. Blum said these statistics demonstrate the importance of the National Guard, not only in the global war on terror, but as an on-call force ready to respond to stateside emergencies.

"This nation cannot afford the consequences of an unready Army and Air National Guard," Lt. Gen. Blum said. "A strong and properly resourced National Guard, I think, is the best credible deterrent for any of our adversaries overseas that might miscalculate and think that we are unable to respond."

Army Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn, vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, reported that recruiting and retention in the Army Guard is on the upswing since last year. "We have averaged, at a net, over 1,000 a month to our end strength," he said.

He urged Congress to provide the resources these troops need to be mission-ready, citing the newly retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker's mantra, "Don't confuse enthusiasm with capability."

"I can tell you that we have the enthusiasm," Lt. Gen. Vaughn told the senators. "The capabilities, you buy. You buy it in terms of training dollars, and you buy it in terms of equipment."

Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig McKinley, the Air National Guard's vice chief, joined Lt. Gen. Blum and Lt. Gen. Vaughn in urging congressional support for the National Guard budget requests. In the midst of tremendous "churn" within the force -- much of it due to the Base Realignment and Closure process -- the Air Guard continues to operate as a highly effective force, he said.

"Your Air National Guard is ready to fight today," he said. "They are totally integrated in the United States Air Force in the global war on terror; they are fighting the away game very professionally in all theaters of the globe, and we are also providing great support here at home."

Maintaining this capability requires solid funding so the force can modernize, Lt. Gen. McKinley said. "It is extremely important to the Air National Guard that our Air Force continues to recapitalize so we can transition the 20th century Air National Guard into a highly effective combat capable 21st century Air National Guard," he said.

Quote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0410/p01s01-usmi.html
USA > Military

from the April 10, 2007 edition

....Yet the Guard is dealing with its own specific issues. The National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, led by Army Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, oversees each state's Guard unit and commits to state governors that at least half of the total force of 350,000 guardsmen are available at any time to respond to a national disaster. The Guard more than meets those requirements, says one Defense official.

However, it's contending with equipment shortages that are leaving 88 percent of units with less than half the equipment required to perform missions at home, according to a commission mandated by Congress to look at such issues.

In 2002, for example, four units had to provide their equipment to forces deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. In 2005, 12 units had to do so, according to the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, citing National Guard Bureau data.

About 25,300 guardsmen are now serving in Iraq. The 13,000 guardsmen cited in the Pentagon's announcement Monday are stationed in four states: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Indiana.

Observers outside the Pentagon believe the Defense Department may need at least twice the 13,000 additional troops from the Guard to sustain the effort in Iraq.

Much of Senator Reid's concern is based on a March report by the commission, which made a series of recommendations about how the Guard and Reserve should be resourced and structured.

"The priorities of the states and their governors are not adequately considered in the Department of Defense's policy and resourcing decisions related to the National Guard, even though governors are, and likely will continue to be, the leaders of most domestic emergency response efforts involving the National Guard," the report said.

In January, General Blum testified that he had heard from governors who complained about the lack of availability of guardsmen when needed the most.

For example, Blum cited Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), who visited her National Guard troops in Iraq but returned to find that a snowstorm had left more than 60,000 Kansans without power. "And she called me, and she said, 'You know, I don't have the engineer equipment and trucks and aviation I need to really take care of my own people right now,' " Blum recalled her telling him. "And I said, 'Governor, we share that concern.' "

Blum has done much "cross-leveling" of equipment and personnel - mixing and matching both people and gear with other state Guard units to ensure they are whole. But without about $40 billion over the next several years, Blum has said he can't sustain the Guard.

"We have lost time, to be frank about it, and time translates to lives," Blum told the commission Jan. 31. "We really do need a strategy that will reequip the National Guard here at home."

Still, there is a flip side to deploying the Guard overseas: critical training, says Mark Allen, a spokesman for the Guard bureau. "They have skills that are very useful in all kinds of situations," he says.

Units who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan who were deployed to the Gulf region after hurricane Katrina could draw on their security- duty experience overseas when it came to restoring law and order after the storm.

"This training, this unit cohesion really helps you in our homeland security in critical situations, saving lives and dealing with the public," he says.

But like the active force, the Guard can become burned out, too.

"The thing that nobody knows is when guardsmen are being asked to do too much," Mr. Allen says.

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...news-a_section
Guard equipment levels lowest since 9/11
Criticized for shortfalls after a Kansas tornado, the Pentagon chief says units have only 56% of their needed supplies.
By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
May 10, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon, bearing the brunt of criticism for shortfalls in National Guard supplies after last week's devastating tornado in Kansas, acknowledged Wednesday that Army National Guard units had only 56% of their required equipment.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a Senate hearing that equipment levels were the lowest since the Sept. 11 attacks. He said that the Bush administration's defense budget request, which asks for $22 billion for the Army National Guard over the next five years, would take Guard units up to 76% of their authorized equipment levels.

"There's no question that there's been a drawdown of equipment in the National Guard," Gates said, adding that even before Sept. 11, Guard units normally were equipped at about 75%. "Clearly we need to follow through with this program to rebuild the stocks of equipment that are available to the National Guard."

At the hearing, a bipartisan group of senators confronted Gates with pointed questions on Guard readiness. The lawmakers argued that repeated deployments to Iraq were causing shortages in equipment needed for domestic security and national disaster response.

The issue moved back into the spotlight after Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, noted the shortfalls after a tornado flattened nearly all of Greensburg, Kan. Guard shortfalls delayed the state's emergency response, she said.

President Bush visited the town Wednesday as administration officials continued to insist that Sebelius had all the resources needed to respond to the crisis. R. David Paulison, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said he had been in repeated contact with the Army general in charge of Kansas' Guard units, who assured him the Army had what it needed.

"He said he has plenty of equipment for this disaster," Paulison told reporters traveling with Bush to Kansas. "I've asked probably at least 20 times, 'Is there anything that you need that you don't have?' The answer is no. And that's from the governor, the general, the mayor and the city manager."

Sebelius reiterated the criticisms during Bush's visit. She said the state had mustered the resources to deal with the Greensburg disaster but would be hard pressed to meet any other contingencies.

"If we have another incident … that needs Guard support, I will be in a situation where we have to choose what we do — and that's a terrible choice to make," she said. "After four years [of war] there's no question that, year after year, Guard supplies are depleted not just in Kansas but all over the country."

White House and Pentagon officials have insisted that sharing agreements among the states would ensure that any shortfalls faced by one state during a disaster could be filled by neighboring states. But some experts have challenged that assertion, saying that nearly every state is running short of equipment because of overseas deployments.

"These compacts are practically nullified now because all states have people in" Iraq, said Melvyn Montano, former head of the New Mexico National Guard. "If you have four or five states around you, where are they going go get their equipment from? Because they all have been deployed."

The chorus was joined Wednesday by several senators, including Republican Sen. Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, who told Gates that his state was facing severe shortages in the military infrastructure that supported its Guard units.

The Army National Guard has told members of Congress that it had $23.6 billion in unfunded requirements that it would need to get back to 100% readiness. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said failure to fill those requirements meant that some states had only 35% of their Guard equipment.

Army National Guard requirements not funded by Bush's budget include 18,600 Humvees, which would cost $2.4 billion over the next five years, and 30,100 trucks, which would require an additional $5.6 billion, according to an analysis cited by Leahy. It indicated the Guard would need $6 billion for 159 Chinook helicopters, the most costly deficiency.

"Right now, there's nothing in the budget to do this, there's no plan to resupply them, and this is creating a real concern among governors around the states," Leahy said.

Gates expressed a willingness to discuss the issue with Congress, saying he was open to adding funding if it filled essential needs.....

....so Marv, is some spin from Tony Snow going to successfully distract from what has really been going on, with this issue? It turns out that the Governor of Kansas has been a responsible official seeking support for the national guard disaster preparedness and readiness in her state, and the Bush administration has stripped guard units across the country of half of their equipment and a sizeable percentage of their manpower, and shipped it off to Iraq. The equipment has not been returned and the executive branch has not even budgeted funds to deal with remedying the equipment shortfalls, even after hurricane Katrina provided a lesson, 20 months ago, that it would be necessary to do so.

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.....

05-08-2007, 07:38 AM	#42 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	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?" __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

05-08-2007, 07:41 AM	#43 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	If it bends, it's funny...if it breaks, it's not. Finesse is important. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 05-08-2007 at 07:42 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-08-2007, 08:23 AM	#49 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-08-2007 at 08:26 AM..

05-08-2007, 09:39 AM	#56 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-08-2007 at 09:41 AM..

05-08-2007, 11:57 AM	#58 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	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. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

05-08-2007, 01:09 PM	#59 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	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. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

05-08-2007, 01:21 PM	#60 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

05-08-2007, 01:32 PM	#61 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	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. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

05-08-2007, 01:42 PM	#62 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Wait. Ketchup on a hot dog? Brat...whatever...ketchup? That's just wrong. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

05-08-2007, 01:53 PM	#63 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-08-2007, 08:08 PM	#64 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	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.

05-08-2007, 09:44 PM	#65 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

05-08-2007, 10:17 PM	#66 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Interesting point will, intent is critical, I can agree with that.. But I do think it is harder to "prove" intent.

05-09-2007, 01:53 AM	#67 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	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. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

05-09-2007, 06:42 AM	#69 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	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. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-09-2007, 09:08 AM	#72 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

05-09-2007, 09:17 AM	#73 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-09-2007 at 09:20 AM..

05-09-2007, 01:04 PM	#74 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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.

05-09-2007, 08:01 PM	#76 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	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.