Not for the humor impaired
 

I absolutely have to quit reading Ann Coulter in the morning. I'm going broke paying to replace keyboards I've spit coffee into.

That said, here is a recent one of hers. I put my favorite parts in yellow, and my comments in red.

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/ann_al.jpg

I would wonder how anyone, after watching this debate, could possibly think that

1. Obama is more knowledgeable, and would therefore make a better president than ANYONE, including George W. Bush.

2. John Edwards is the poor man's friend. John Edwards, who amassed a $38 million fortune by blaming every OB/GYN in NC for cerebral palsy, and every psychiatrist for patients who commit suicide. As long as the major qualification for office is good hair, he's a shoo-in. Maybe Sanjayah could be his running mate. Oops--he's too young. Okay, we'll go with a cabinet-level position instead.

Unless things have changed around here, the responses will include:

1. One member who will refer to all Republicans (never mind that the obvious tactic would be to refute the above--since it's all true, if sarcastic, the only option is to attack Republicans) as "greedy and mean-spirited." The same member once made a post which said, in its entirety, "The president's word = dogshit." That is no longer in the archives, but things never disappear completely.

2. One or more disjointed and incomprehensible compilations of "sources," which take up four or five screens. Every post of this nature that has ever been made here can be summed up as "Death to Bush, Rove, and Cheney!!!"

3. A few "Yeah, but your guys are worse" posts.

Come to think of it, this thread may not get any responses. I've already posted all of them.

Actually Marv....I would very much like to reply.

It was rather funny to see the great Anne at her best, (which isn't very good) trying to tear apart the words of people who obviously didnt need much help to look bad. The Bias she throws is no longer even funny for most thinking people (conservatives included), and has to be something of an embarassment.
That said, I would agree the Dems pretty much sucked as expected, but still said more than the Republicans during the debate they tried to hold. Neither side has much to be proud of at this point, and it seems we the people have a bunch of losers to choose from for the highest office in the country.
I would recommend however, you pick someone a bit less...uh....whats the word......pointless to quote in the future. You do yourself an injustice everytime you place her words in a context of seriousness.

I agree, this type of thing requires a good sense of humor. If only so that one doesn't feel the need to collapse into a pile of hate when pondering the condition of popular political discourse in this country.

That being said, i don't really understand your point. Is it that ann coulter can be moderately clever and disingenuous at the same time? I think if the people who signed her checks were of a different political ideology than they are now she could have written an equally moderately clever and disingenuous piece of commentary about the republican debates.

I haven't seen the debate, so I can't comment on it. However, Ann Coulter is an evil, nasty woman, who is popular mostly because people revel in the filth she spews out. I wouldn't give credence to what she says if she were running around claiming that the pope is catholic.

Also, claiming to know what all the responses will be, and paraphrasing isn't debate. It's annoying. At best, it's masturbation.

I think this is a low-point for the voracious wit of Ann Coulter due obviously to the glaring lack of material she had to deal with.

Nah....Mostly its stuff like this that made me decide not to read her opinions anymore:

“(Liberals say) (t)he death penalty does not deter. How do liberals know? This is an article of faith, not a statement of empirical fact. If the death penalty doesn’t deter murder, how come Michael Moore is still alive and I’m not on death row?”

“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

“They’re [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”

“Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of ‘kill everyone who doesn’t smell bad and doesn’t answer to the name Mohammed’)”.

“Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President.”

“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”

“The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man’s dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet–it’s yours. That’s our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that’s the Biblical view.”

“I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn’t.”

“I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting — and your Communists will back me up on this — is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”

“When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we’re up against absolutely insane savages.”

“Our book is Genesis. Their book is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the original environmental hoax.”

“I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

“I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed ”airport towers“ out of bamboo and ”headphones“ out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.”

I like that picture of Ann and the Rev., though. Leaves me wondering who's feeling up who. :p

ann coulter.
what an idiot.

I wonder if she's ever been to a Presidential debate. You see, of all the responsibilities of the nominees, picking the light bulbs is not one of them. Also, Ann presents a false choice (something she uses commonly in the stead of a decent argument). It's not integrity OR character OR truthfulness OR low energy lightbulbs, it all of the above. Speaking from experience, a father can teach all of those things at once! My daughter very rarely lies at age 3.5, she is a character, and she knows about the 'energy star' sticker on the washer. It's good to know that Obama is as wise a father as I.
Again Ann's complete lack of knowledge comes into play. a) the question asked for allies, not allied countries, and b) the EU is an ally to the US in MANY ways. Just because they didn't support the ass backwards invasion of Iraq doesn't mean that they are going to continue freely trading with us or meeting with us at the UN.
Anne Coulter is a blatant racist and she wouldn't know what a European was thinking if she had telepathy because she's so closed minded herself. Or was this to try and make people laugh? Ha ha! Muslims hate us! Everyone join in the racist good time! Sorry, but Ann isn't a comedian. This is hate filled rhetoric. Also, many Europeans hate our government, just like most Americans.
Which is funny coming from Ann Coulter. In this very article, she has completely misrepresented all European Muslims and broke the third commandment 20 times. Ann Coulter is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black, and the funny thing is, the kettle isn't even black. Obama is. There's your Coulter-esque humor of the day.

Maybe it's time, again....for real change.....

Correction: The European Union happens to be composed by people amazed that Ann Coulter isn't commited to some insane asylum. Then again what do we know? We're bat shit crazy liberals who hates God, the US and children. Not necessarily in that order...

I love Ann Coulter. She has a way of striking a certain nerve in liberals that makes them go into fits. I am not sure whats funnier, her humor or the liberal response.

I think she knows exactly what she is doing, and does it deliberately to get attention and goose her sales figures. If the usual suspects didn't react to her the way she tries to get them to react, she wouldn't get half as much attention or make half as much money. I doubt she really believes half the things she says.

it's almost funny that the "she really gets the goat of liberals" is the best you can do, ace.

conservatism does not have to be stupid.
you seem to have forgotten: i guess protracted exposure to contemporary american conservatism will do that to you.

Occasionally I just sit down and have a good laugh. I like political humor, I even like Doonebury. Which reminds me, I have to find my copy of; In Search of Regan's Brain - that had to be his best compilation. I also like the guy named Al Gore - he did this bit in front of Congress - ...wheen yoour baabby's on fire, yoou puut the fire oout..., when I heard that, I laughed for at least an hour.

I'm seriously curious though Ace....please read the quotes from her I posted above, and give me your opinion on how beneficial they are to the country, the conservative cause, and the goal of peaceful coexistance of Amercans. Also, of you would please take her comments as a literal truth in her mind, as that is how she portrays it....rather than political humor.

Then look at the way people who might actually care about society, and civilized communication would take such commentary, and how they might feel about someone that "Loves" what she stands for.

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.

skier wins the thread. Well played.

About as beneficial as the political skits on SNTL.

Liberals focus on her humor rather than focusing on their liberal causes.

A wise man once said - when liberals learn to laugh, peace will prevail.

You have to admit that Gore testimony about the baby was pretty funny, even if you are a liberal.

She takes a line of truth and stretches it to it's extreme limits for the sake of humor. She is right at the "edge" and it depends, but sometimes she is serious and somtimes not. Generally, when she is being interviewed and can hardly contain her laughter, she knows she has taken a step over the "edge" and is kinda toying with the qudiance or interviewer. That is when I start to loose it.

What she called the Edwards went too far, but for the most part, I think her voice is healthy, no worse than the left political humor.

The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Real Time with Bill Maher are all very popular.

As a conservative I laugh when I watch those shows. I even read a few pages from Al Franken's last book at the book store and laughed a few times. Why can't liberals see the humor in Ann?

Ann is cruel and bigoted. Jon, Stephen and Bill aren't.

What was cruel and bigoted in what was shown in the OP?

Did you see SNTL Saturday night, the opening skit with Pelosi and "San Francisco Values", that is o.k., but Ann is cruel?

I think I understand.

Yes, this is part of it. Also, AFAIK, Jon, Stephen, and Bill are all *always* billed as essentially political comedians. The impression I get is that Ann is *not* viewed as merely a voice of comedy - she is (supposed to be) more of a comentator, a mouthpiece of conservative thought. If she were a comedian spouting her hateful thoughts, that woud be one thing. But she's not. She's held up as some sort of conservative icon. If the lines tecoyah quotes were from a comedian, I would mostly just think they weren't very funny. Maybe some of them are for comedic effect, and not intended to be taken seriously at all. Impossible to tell without context. But, from what I've heard from her, I think she *really* means most of them, and that scares the hell out of me, when they come from someone that is supposed to represent conservative thought in this country.

So, if she's meant to be the right's version of Stephen Colbert, and nothing she says is meant to be taken seriously, then I have to say I just don't find her funny. But I think she's not trying to be funny. I think, like I said before, she is an evil woman, best ignored.

I echo robot_parade's line of thought.

If she's supposed to be a comedian, she just sucks at it.

My opinion of Ann Coulter has always been that if she wasn't tall, blonde and a good dresser she wouldn't be nearly as popular. Let's face it, the Right in this country is dominated by white males, and from an aesthetic standpoint, she's going to be appealing to that group. If she was fat with a big hairy facial mole, I sincerely doubt she'd be anywhere close to the phenomenon she is.

Personally, I don't find her particularly witty or insightful. Her writing comes off as shrill, but I'm also the first to admit that there hasn't been a politcal columnist that I've consistently read since Royko died. I grew up reading his stuff, and he was actually one of the reasons (albeit way down the list)that I moved to Chicago all those years ago.

She gets attention because her targets rise to the bait. She's doing it deliberately, or at least seems that way to me. For her it's good business. The more shrill and over-the-top the better. She's a political carnival barker, parading her freak show around. If people didn't come by to gawk and cluck disapprovingly, she'd fade real fast.

So you're saying Ann Coulter is Ali G?

Lil Junior Miss Conservative?
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiative...brownshirt.jpg

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiative...brownshirt.asp

nice dc...

Personally I prefer the Bartcop clown picture, but I can't find it. This one is funny too, dc.

That sums up my thoughts on Coulter. She's just annoying to me. More annoying than Carrot Top, less annoying than Carlos Mencia.

Also, to me, she's less annoying than the fans who take her seriously.

Why does she call Barack Obama "Hussein Obama"?

I don't get it.

It's his middle name: Barak Hussain Obama.

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?

Oh heck Ace, maybe you're right. Everyone else has already torn her article to shreds so I guess I don't need to chime in there.

Hell I'll even give her props - considering her other work, I think she was pretty nice in this column. After all, she didn't call anyone a faggot this time.

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?

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 ...

Actually, instead of discrediting what she said, they just hated on her.

This has nothing to do with humor and everything to do with political standing. I don't find it funny, because I find it QUITE disingenuous.

"I just woke up from watching the Democrats' debate last Thursday"

HILARIOUS! BAHAHA ! CHUCKLE CHUCKLE. She's a Conservative, and she watched the Democratic debate! BAHAH!

"To prove his bona fides to the environmentalist nuts, Obama said: "We've also been working to install lightbulbs that last longer and save energy. And that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Malia and 5-year-old Sasha."

This wasn't his response to gay marriage, and she knows it. It was taken out of context.

"In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are "biased." But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
At this, even Hillary Clinton was thinking, "Come on, guys — let's grow a pair."

This ALMOST warrants a chuckle.

"(When he mentioned his spouse as a "moral leader," Hillary visibly tensed for fear that she might be asked the same question.)
In fairness to Edwards, asking a trial lawyer to name his favorite moral leader is like asking the president of Iran to name his favorite Jew. (Answer: George Soros.)"

Another "almost."

Oh - AND, to be quite honest - she's a bigoted idiot bitch. If John Stewart was vocally political outside of his show, going so far as to attack others, he wouldn't be funny, either.

There's funny, and there's funny with a motive. Guess which one Coulter likes?

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

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.

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.

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'.

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.


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?

No

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

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

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.

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.



Are you American?

What do you eat at tailgate parties?

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.

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.

I just think she's kinda funny.:sad: :sad: I promise to study up on humor, do you recomend any paticular courses?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hell, yes.

I don't give a fuck. :p

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


:suave:



Damn skippy.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:
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?

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/

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?

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:
....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.....