jpyaks3 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 No, I just thought his sucking up to them a little sickening. How the hell is pointing out the ridiculousness of the coverage sucking up to them at all? Can you point out exactly how or where he sucked up to Muslims? Because I sure don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I believe this addresses your concerns. Particularly the last two minutes. No, it doesn't. Not targeting Allah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Well, as I said, I don't watch the show. I guess my assessment is based on all the air headed zombies around here who pretend that it is something more than satire, and give him credit for being something other than an opportunistic entertainer.My question though, was serious. I find it surprising, with the touchiness of Allah worshipers, that if he ever went after him like he does the Christian's God of choice, he would have been killed by now. So, if he hasn't, I guess it means he's not stupid, just that the parts of his audience that see him as some kind of social hero, are. What? So you don’t watch the show but you somehow “know” that he sucks up to Muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I believe this addresses your concerns. Particularly the last two minutes.http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-2010/south-park-death-threats I remember that,, damn brave if you ask me. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 How the hell is pointing out the ridiculousness of the coverage sucking up to them at all? Can you point out exactly how or where he sucked up to Muslims? Because I sure don't see it. Forget it, he's rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I do think Ax has a point. The worship for Jon Stewart is absolutely absurd. For those of you too young to remember, the Daily Show with Craig Kilborn was just as good if not better than with Stewart. Prior to the Daily Show, Jon Stewart was widely known as failure exhibit A. Several failed talk show attempts that just, well, sucked. For some reason networks like MTV kept parading him out in front of us. Every time, the public responded with "this guy is an unfunny dweeb". He fell backwards into the Daily Show chair and has continued the franchise. Whoopty ****. :jerk: This "genius" talk makes me want to claw my eyes out. Stewart is absolutely anything but. You could take any number of average TV hosts and put them in that chair to same effect. John Henson, Craig Kilborn, Jimmy Fallon, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 No, it doesn't.Not targeting Allah. Come on man,, the entire segment is about muslim extremist violence, he prefaces the last bit by saying he's specifically talking to the extremist muslims, and after dedicating the song to anyone who threatens death over religion or politics, he leads the choir in a song called 'go **** yourself". Seriously, what do you want? Do you want him to **** on a photo of Allah? Why? I'm not sure I understand why what is in that video doesn't do what I thought you were saying they don't do. I didn't realize you meant that he had to specifically insult their god, rather than just tell all of the radicals to go **** themselves. He basically invited the loonies to put a target on him. And if he's a douchebag, so what? Does that mean the show isn't funny? Can't laugh at him because he's a douche, or because Craig Kilborn is funny too? I don't get it. In all honesty, I used to hate him before he started doing this show, and in fact when they announced him taking over, I was pretty pissed. I never liked his standup, but he's certainly found his calling with this sort of show. And he's got a fan in me. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianm23 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 No, I just thought his sucking up to them a little sickening. Ax strikes me as the type of person you'd see at one of these. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 No, it doesn't.Not targeting Allah. In this thread you've said I'm sure he'd be welcomed by all his Mooslim friends then. I'm also sure he'd feel safe walking the streets without bodyguards. My question though, was serious. I find it surprising, with the touchiness of Allah worshipers, that if he ever went after him like he does the Christian's God of choice, he would have been killed by now. and No, I just thought his sucking up to them a little sickening. You don't think Jon telling a radical Muslim group known for threatening comedians to go **** themselves counts? You think that's sucking up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I observed in the first posted video, the schtick, was making fun of anyone who might question the idiocy of Obama telling NASA their top three priorities were, tic-tac-toe, and how Muslims should be able to build a mosque anywhere they wish. However, in the second video, the schtick, started with the insinuation that Muslims had no right to have a mosque in NYC. This, of course, after their cohorts had been threatened by douche bags. Of course, now, even the White House is trying to back away from the comments made, by saying, we never said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 This "genius" talk makes me want to claw my eyes out. Stewart is absolutely anything but. You could take any number of average TV hosts and put them in that chair to same effect. John Henson, Craig Kilborn, Jimmy Fallon, etc. False. Go check out what Jon Stewart did to Jim Cramer. People need to realize that Jon Stewart is a William and Mary grad and actually an exceptionally smart and well read person. His show is funny and while it may not qualify as informative, he occasionally offers some political insight. Craig Kilborn is awful, Jimmy Fallon was decent but not great on SNL and does nothing for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I do think Ax has a point. The worship for Jon Stewart is absolutely absurd.For those of you too young to remember, the Daily Show with Craig Kilborn was just as good if not better than with Stewart. Prior to the Daily Show, Jon Stewart was widely known as failure exhibit A. Several failed talk show attempts that just, well, sucked. For some reason networks like MTV kept parading him out in front of us. Every time, the public responded with "this guy is an unfunny dweeb". He fell backwards into the Daily Show chair and has continued the franchise. Whoopty ****. :jerk: This "genius" talk makes me want to claw my eyes out. Stewart is absolutely anything but. You could take any number of average TV hosts and put them in that chair to same effect. John Henson, Craig Kilborn, Jimmy Fallon, etc. Kilborn was funny. And you are correct Stewart was fairly marginal before taking over The Daily Show (though I did like his work on Elmopalooza :pfft:) However, I do think the show has gotten a lot better since Kilborn left, and so has Stewart. Maybe the writing has gotten better. Maybe Stewart just has really good people. Maybe current events just supply Stewart with much better material (I think that's a big factor) but for whatever reason I do think Stewart has taken that show to a whole new level. I don't worship Stewart and I don't think his show is news. I do really appreciate his ability to laugh at some real ****ed up **** that this country is going through right now. I really really need to laugh at it sometimes, because people seem to get so angry and so bitter so quickly now. And someone, somewhere needs to moon those people every now and then. And that's why I like his show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianm23 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I believe this addresses your concerns. Particularly the last two minutes.http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-2010/south-park-death-threats hahaha :ols::ols: that song at the end is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Ax strikes me as the type of person you'd see at one of these. Which would point out your ignorance of really knowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 You don't think Jon telling a radical Muslim group known for threatening comedians to go **** themselves counts? You think that's sucking up? Come on Henry, I know you're smarter than this. My question was specific to what the followers would do if Stewart attacked, Allah himself. Not, his followers. And, the sucking up was in the first video. He told everyone who would make threats, including Muslim extremists, to **** off, in the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Come on Henry, I know you're smarter than this.My question was specific to what the followers would do if Stewart attacked, Allah himself. Not, his followers. And, the sucking up was in the first video. He told everyone who would make threats, including Muslim extremists, to **** off, in the second. Why would Stewart attack Allah? You are just trying to take a shot at Muslims and its pretty ****ty way to do it because you obviously don't understand the point of the show. Where is the sucking up in that first video? Seriously what part of pointing out the ridiculousness of the coverage is sucking up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Why would Stewart attack Allah? Same reason he attacks anyone else. To be, funny. You are just trying to take a shot at Muslims and its pretty ****ty way to do it because you obviously don't understand the point of the show. You are, incorrect. Where is the sucking up in that first video? Seriously what part of pointing out the ridiculousness of the coverage is sucking up? Strange you don't see the difference between the first video, and the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Same reason he attacks anyone else. To be, funny. You obviously don't understand what the show is about, it is a satirical news program, it isn't just making fun of random things. Strange you don't see the difference between the first video, and the second. They are two entirely different news stories. Thats why they are different. Its really simple. What exactly in the first video is sucking up to Muslims? Please be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Same reason he attacks anyone else. To be, funny. Allah doesn't do anything directly where credit/blame is clearly directly attributable to Allah to be funny. AT BEST, a follower of Allah might attribute something to Allah, which might lead to the ridicule of the person doing the attribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 What exactly in the first video is sucking up to Muslims? Please be specific. The whole premise was to make fun of everyone criticizing the people criticizing Obama for his latest idiotic suggestion. Which, he now is claiming he never said. In doing so, generally sucking up to Muslims, (just short of offering them to come **** his sister), occurred simultaneously. It's not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 The whole premise was to make fun of everyone criticizing the people criticizing Obama for his latest idiotic suggestion.Which, he now is claiming he never said. In doing so, generally sucking up to Muslims, (just short of offering them to come **** his sister), occurred simultaneously. It's not rocket science. He is making fun of Fox News for the ridiculous amount of coverage they used on basically a PR statement, also he is making fun of them for thinking that NASA has never had a political purpose or worked towards political goals, it has. How the hell is that sucking up to Muslims? He is also making fun of the coverage of some of the anti-mosque demonstrations and the like. How is that sucking up to Muslims? Wow you really don't have a clue do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 The whole premise was to make fun of everyone criticizing the people criticizing Obama for his latest idiotic suggestion.Which, he now is claiming he never said. In doing so, generally sucking up to Muslims, (just short of offering them to come **** his sister), occurred simultaneously. It's not rocket science. You're right, it's not rocket science. Like in showing how their supposed standard bearer Ronald Reagan proposed and did the exact same thing with the Soviets, thereby bridging a gap and finding common ground where we could develop mutual respect. This was a piece in what led to being able to win the cold war without firing a shot, and dismantling the Soviet Union. This is where Fox needs to be shown for what it is. They say one thing, but they clearly don't believe it. Reagan did the exact same thing with the exact same agency. And yet now it's a problem? The strategy has worked in the past with another bitter enemy. How is it the Neos can't see it as a tribute to Reagan's method? How can anyone not see this "coverage" as the political grandstanding it is? Trying to create controversy where there should be none based on past performance of the same strategy. It's a shame so many gobble it up without even checking the slop they're eating. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 The whole premise was to make fun of everyone criticizing the people criticizing Obama for his latest idiotic suggestion.Which, he now is claiming he never said. In doing so, generally sucking up to Muslims, (just short of offering them to come **** his sister), occurred simultaneously. It's not rocket science. Dude, it's one bit. And it was funny. In another bit, he told radical Muslims to go **** themselves. Was he sucking up to Christians and Jews in that one because he said they had a better sense of humor? Because he pointed out EXACTLY what you are trying to point out in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 For those of you too young to remember, the Daily Show with Craig Kilborn was just as good if not better than with Stewart. I didn't watch the show in those days, but I'd have to say that Stewart is probably a better fit for the show than Kilborn. Stewart is probably closer to the "stoic newsman" persona, which is what makes the show work. It allows him to be the straight man to the more nutty correspondants. Prior to the Daily Show, Jon Stewart was widely known as failure exhibit A. Several failed talk show attempts that just, well, sucked. For some reason networks like MTV kept parading him out in front of us. Every time, the public responded with "this guy is an unfunny dweeb".He fell backwards into the Daily Show chair and has continued the franchise. Whoopty ****. :jerk: Well, MTV kept trotting him out there because he was successful on there. (The Jon Stewart Show was the second highest rated show on MTV.) Letterman liked him so much, he gave him a job at Worldwide Pants. The irony is that a lot of people thought that he was going to get the job that Kilborn eventually got. Meanwhile, Stewart is still here and where is Kilborn? This "genius" talk makes me want to claw my eyes out. Stewart is absolutely anything but. You could take any number of average TV hosts and put them in that chair to same effect. John Henson, Craig Kilborn, Jimmy Fallon, etc. I think I'd tear my eyes out if Jimmy Fallon was hosting the Daily Show. Really, I don't think just anyone could host The Daily Show. You need a guy who projects a serious enough image on the surface, but with the comic wit to pull off the comedy. I've seen guys like Bill Maher and Dennis Miller try similar things and there is often too much seriousness and not enough comedy in their deliveries. Stewart strikes a good balance between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 wow, I can't believe my rant flew under the radar :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.