http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdkUnzkUaG
:D
I wonder if people like Maher and Coulter realize that they're helping the other side more than their own. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
I wonder if people like Maher and Coulter realize that they're helping the other side more than their own. :rolleyes:
No, I don't think they do.
And I don't think they care.
Nor do I think they have an adverse effect, really.
They both preech to the converted. Democrats hearing Coulter think its one more proofs Republicans are all a bunch of idiots.
Republicans hearing Maher think it's one more proof the liberals are worst than they can ever be.
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2010, 01:39:12 PM
They both preech to the converted. Democrats hearing Coulter think its one more proofs Republicans are all a bunch of idiots.
Republicans hearing Maher think it's one more proof the liberals are worst than they can ever be.
They both turn off the middle.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2010, 02:20:12 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2010, 01:39:12 PM
They both preech to the converted. Democrats hearing Coulter think its one more proofs Republicans are all a bunch of idiots.
Republicans hearing Maher think it's one more proof the liberals are worst than they can ever be.
They both turn off the middle.
But since there is no real "third alternative" in America, what does that matter? If some of the middle is turned off by
both parties, they just won't vote - so where's the harm for either party?
Beautiful :lmfao:
Quote from: Agelastus on March 27, 2010, 02:50:24 PM
But since there is no real "third alternative" in America, what does that matter? If some of the middle is turned off by both parties, they just won't vote - so where's the harm for either party?
X + Y = 0 does not imply X = 0.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2010, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on March 27, 2010, 02:50:24 PM
But since there is no real "third alternative" in America, what does that matter? If some of the middle is turned off by both parties, they just won't vote - so where's the harm for either party?
X + Y = 0 does not imply X = 0.
No, it does not, but your point in the context of some voters being turned off by both parties is?
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2010, 10:51:34 AM
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdkUnzkUaG
:D
:lol: At least he's funny - as opposed to the whole 'fire and brimstone' crowd on the other side...
G.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 27, 2010, 05:01:58 PM
No, it does not, but your point in the context of some voters being turned off by both parties is?
If there was no Maher, the Dems would be in infinitesimally better shape than they are now. That there are similarly toxic Republicans who counterbalance him doesn't change the fact that *his* effect is negative.
Quote from: Grallon on March 27, 2010, 06:31:00 PM
:lol: At least he's funny - as opposed to the whole 'fire and brimstone' crowd on the other side...
G.
You just liked that he was vulgar.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 07:19:14 PM
You just liked that he was vulgar.
:P I enjoyed how apt the colorful language he used was to describe the whinny little bitches that are so many republicans when things don't go their way.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 27, 2010, 07:39:09 PM
:P I enjoyed how apt the colorful language he used was to describe the whinny little bitches that are so many republicans when things don't go their way.
G.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.horserides.org%2Fmred.gif&hash=b871de4e9078641acc2c3d80f8f5a4b6b6f49aa7)
?
I don't get the reference but it made me laugh. :hug:
G.
Whinny. I think you meant whiney or whiny. :P
And that's Mr. Ed. :wub:
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 07:51:14 PM
Whinny. I think you meant whiney or whiny. :P
And that's Mr. Ed. :wub:
See how contrarian you are!? You agree with me but for the sake of effects you disagree! Impossible child!
Incidently I found the Gaga song you favor: "
Dance in the Dark". These lyrics gave you away:
"I am as vain as I allow..."
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 27, 2010, 08:02:14 PM
See how contrarian you are!? You agree with me but for the sake of effects you disagree! Impossible child!
I often vote for Republicans so I doubt I agree to any great extent.
Quote from: Grallon on March 27, 2010, 08:02:14 PMIncidently I found the Gaga song you favor: "Dance in the Dark". These lyrics gave you away:
"I am as vain as I allow..."
G.
Are you calling me a tramp or do you mean So Happy I Could Die?
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Grallon on March 27, 2010, 07:39:09 PM
:P I enjoyed how apt the colorful language he used was to describe the whinny little bitches that are so many republicans when things don't go their way.
G.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.horserides.org%2Fmred.gif&hash=b871de4e9078641acc2c3d80f8f5a4b6b6f49aa7)
?
He's bored.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 08:13:08 PM
Are you calling me a tramp or do you mean So Happy I Could Die?
My (wine induced) mistake - you're right - it's "So Happy I ciould die"
G.
I would not at all compare Maher and Coulter. He is damn funny, and she isn't.
That was funny? :huh: Crudeness in itself does not automatically constitute humour.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
I wonder if people like Maher and Coulter realize that they're helping the other side more than their own. :rolleyes:
Maher is a beacon of truth; Coulter isn't.
And, as Berkut said, he's funny.
Awesome. :D
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 29, 2010, 12:15:18 AM
That was funny? :huh:
Yes, it was. Quite funny.
QuoteCrudeness in itself does not automatically constitute humour.
No, it doesn't (except the point-at-and-laugh humor, which is what we do to Tiger Woods when reading this stuff). It is when you juxtapose crudity with politics that it becomes funny.
Maher is an entertainer, not a political commentator. He does comedy TV, not comic op-ed pieces. He is nothing like Ann Coulter.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2010, 06:02:09 AM
He is nothing like Ann Coulter.
Both give credence to the slippery slope arguments of the opposition. Both are full of vitriol which turns off the unconverted.
There are plenty of humorists who can advance political arguments without seeming petty and vicious and extreme. Jon Stewart springs to mind. Or Dennis Miller. But I'd bet Bill Maher costs Democrats votes whenever he opens his mouth. Not very many, he's not that important. But more than he gains. This is why I compared him with a "serious" :rolleyes: pundit like Coulter, who does the same thing in reverse.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2010, 06:38:39 AM
Both give credence to the slippery slope arguments of the opposition. Both are full of vitriol which turns off the unconverted.
Maher gives credence to nothing except with people who don't understand what a comic is.
QuoteThere are plenty of humorists who can advance political arguments without seeming petty and vicious and extreme. Jon Stewart springs to mind. Or Dennis Miller. But I'd bet Bill Maher costs Democrats votes whenever he opens his mouth. Not very many, he's not that important. But more than he gains. This is why I compared him with a "serious" :rolleyes: pundit like Coulter, who does the same thing in reverse.
I don't think you understand show business. The last thing Maher wants is to be like another comic (Jon Stewart and Dennis Miller do, indeed, spring to mind - but that niche is covered). Maher wants to be unique, and uses this hilariously extreme approach in order to be unique.
Real Time has its funny moments, but last season he spent more air time lecturing on his obsession with organic food than comedy. :(
Being a militant left wing pinko socialist America hating traitor my wife loves Real Time...and I do have to admit he is funny and entertaining.
He's kind of annoying, but I'll give him props for the dig at Palin at the end.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2010, 07:14:06 AM
I don't think you understand show business. The last thing Maher wants is to be like another comic (Jon Stewart and Dennis Miller do, indeed, spring to mind - but that niche is covered). Maher wants to be unique, and uses this hilariously extreme approach in order to be unique.
I think what Ann Coulter does is mostly show business too.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2010, 08:51:40 AM
I think what Ann Coulter does is mostly show business too.
Disagree. I would guess she gets far more of her income from speaking fees than from show business. I'd bet the opposite of Maher.
She gets those fees(as well as book sales, another big chunk of her income) because she's sold herself playing a character on the news. Besides, you wouldn't call Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods "actors" because they've raked in so much money making commercials.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2010, 02:20:12 PM
They both turn off the middle.
Do they really?
Or fo they shock them enough to bring them over their side, wichever was closest from 'their' middle?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2010, 07:06:46 PM
If there was no Maher, the Dems would be in infinitesimally better shape than they are now. That there are similarly toxic Republicans who counterbalance him doesn't change the fact that *his* effect is negative.
I think people like Michael Moore and Sean Penn do a lot of damages to the Democrats, much more than any tv/radio host could ever do.
Quote from: Valmy on March 29, 2010, 08:16:59 AM
and I do have to admit he is funny and entertaining.
:yes: Religulous FTW. :cool:
Frankly, I don't think the US has a "leftist equivalent of Ann Coulter", at least in absolute terms (i.e. as hateful and evil, but directing his or her attacks against supporters of the Republican party). American politics is too skewed to the right to have a truly evil left (say, the communist equivalent of dominionists, for example).
Quote from: viper37 on March 29, 2010, 11:01:00 AM
I think people like Michael Moore and Sean Penn do a lot of damages to the Democrats, much more than any tv/radio host could ever do.
Everybody watches tv just as everybody watches movies, there's the same potential audience either way. But my point wasn't about the amount of damage he does, but rather that his overall effect, however small, was damaging rather than supporting the cause.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2010, 08:59:14 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2010, 08:51:40 AM
I think what Ann Coulter does is mostly show business too.
Disagree. I would guess she gets far more of her income from speaking fees than from show business. I'd bet the opposite of Maher.
Probably true, but that doesn't mean she isn't in "show business". You still need to be entertaining and engaging in order to rake in big speaking fees.
Quote from: Barrister on March 29, 2010, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2010, 08:59:14 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2010, 08:51:40 AM
I think what Ann Coulter does is mostly show business too.
Disagree. I would guess she gets far more of her income from speaking fees than from show business. I'd bet the opposite of Maher.
Probably true, but that doesn't mean she isn't in "show business". You still need to be entertaining and engaging in order to rake in big speaking fees.
So now we are going to include Al Gore and George Bush as being in show business?
Quote from: Barrister on March 29, 2010, 11:44:44 AM
Probably true, but that doesn't mean she isn't in "show business". You still need to be entertaining and engaging in order to rake in big speaking fees.
I suppose that, if you ignore the meaning of the term "show business," you could say that she is in show business.
You could say that about
anyone under those conditions, though. Rather defeats the purpose of having the term.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2010, 12:00:56 PM
So now we are going to include Al Gore and George Bush as being in show business?
:yes: That's a problem with defining "show business" so loosely. I'd argue, though, that George Bush is more in "show business" than Ann Coulter is. he is doing this to make money, while she is doing it to try to influence policies and votes. Maher is doing it for the money.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2010, 09:37:50 AM
She gets those fees(as well as book sales, another big chunk of her income) because she's sold herself playing a character on the news. Besides, you wouldn't call Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods "actors" because they've raked in so much money making commercials.
I would call none of Coulter, Woods, or Jordan actors, and I
would call Maher one.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2010, 12:00:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 29, 2010, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2010, 08:59:14 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2010, 08:51:40 AM
I think what Ann Coulter does is mostly show business too.
Disagree. I would guess she gets far more of her income from speaking fees than from show business. I'd bet the opposite of Maher.
Probably true, but that doesn't mean she isn't in "show business". You still need to be entertaining and engaging in order to rake in big speaking fees.
So now we are going to include Al Gore and George Bush as being in show business?
In 2010? Sure.
Does anyone remember the old days when Maher was a basically nonpartisan libertarian?
He's kept up the whole Marijuana legalization shtick and disdain of religion. What other libertard pet projects did he deal with on Politically Incorrect?
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Frankly, I don't think the US has a "leftist equivalent of Ann Coulter", at least in absolute terms (i.e. as hateful and evil, but directing his or her attacks against supporters of the Republican party). American politics is too skewed to the right to have a truly evil left (say, the communist equivalent of dominionists, for example).
I guess it's all in your perspective.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 29, 2010, 07:25:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Frankly, I don't think the US has a "leftist equivalent of Ann Coulter", at least in absolute terms (i.e. as hateful and evil, but directing his or her attacks against supporters of the Republican party). American politics is too skewed to the right to have a truly evil left (say, the communist equivalent of dominionists, for example).
I guess it's all in your perspective.
And Marti's perspective of America...
We have our crazy Lefties. Michael Moore and such.
Quote from: Jaron on March 29, 2010, 07:41:34 PM
We have our crazy Lefties. Michael Moore and such.
I thought he made honest documentaries. :huh:
As long as we're on Michael Moore and crazy lefties, there's a question I have. Whenever he was on CNN (which was like once a week) to talk about health care reform, he would always go off about the Democrats disinclination to "fight" for the program. Kat in the Hatmai's bestest friend Mike Gravel said the exact same thing about pulling out of Iraq during the primaries. It seems to be a term used fairly regularly by progressives when talking about legislation.
Anyone have any idea what this means exactly? Seems to me either you have the votes or you don't.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2010, 03:05:56 PM
Does anyone remember the old days when Maher was a basically nonpartisan libertarian?
I think he found the market for that type of entertainment limited, and so adjusted his schtick to stay employed. That's show biz for ya.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2010, 08:06:17 PM
As long as we're on Michael Moore and crazy lefties, there's a question I have. Whenever he was on CNN (which was like once a week) to talk about health care reform, he would always go off about the Democrats disinclination to "fight" for the program. Kat in the Hatmai's bestest friend Mike Gravel said the exact same thing about pulling out of Iraq during the primaries. It seems to be a term used fairly regularly by progressives when talking about legislation.
Anyone have any idea what this means exactly? Seems to me either you have the votes or you don't.
I think you can get votes by leaning on Blue Dogs, and the like. You can threaten primary opposition, or the like. Plus, use straight intimidation. LBJ was a master of this process, and he got results even when he didn't start out with the votes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2010, 08:06:17 PM
As long as we're on Michael Moore and crazy lefties, there's a question I have. Whenever he was on CNN (which was like once a week) to talk about health care reform, he would always go off about the Democrats disinclination to "fight" for the program. Kat in the Hatmai's bestest friend Mike Gravel said the exact same thing about pulling out of Iraq during the primaries. It seems to be a term used fairly regularly by progressives when talking about legislation.
Anyone have any idea what this means exactly? Seems to me either you have the votes or you don't.
Not for Democrats. There are a lot of Democrats that are from conservative districts, and thus afraid to get on with the Democratic program. Getting a vote out of them is not easy, but may be doable with a lot of leaning.
It means turning on the political machine of smoke-filled rooms and threats from union bosses, of course. Arm-twisting. Making offers that can't be refused.