I think that what Stone and Parker really hate are the finger-waggers, joy-killers, fear-mongers, bandwagon-jumpers, pearl-clutchers, nosy-parkers, and general professional-bloviators that make up not only politics, but end up pushing every single “conversation” on any social issue.
Oh, and people who’ve got giant metaphorical sticks up their butt. Them too.
They do make their stuff funny, and I spend a lot of time laughing myself silly at South Park.
Perhaps. But it’s not as though there’s much in the way of successful conservative political humor shows/movies to point to as well. I mean, even if you disagreed with Stewart & Colbert’s politics, you had to admit that the shows drew an audience.
Except that they aren’t being funny on purpose.
Don’t forget the bluenoses, prodnoses, telltales and twitch-curtains. And Kyle’s Mom. What a bitch.
I’m still waiting for Sitnam to pick his conservative comedian who does political stuff so that I can go to youtube and find out if his/her political schtick is funny.
I actually think Ann Coulter is deliberately trying to be funny. That’s how I’ve always taken her schtick. I disagree with her in just about every way, but a lot what she says is clearly for the purposes of trolling. Which is its own sort of ‘point and laugh’ comedy.
Amused by the choice of Selma as an example. Unlike the perversions of nearly every major film about history, including a couple currently in theaters, the most Selma can be accused of is altering timelines a little or speculating based on circumstantial evidence about LBJ. So I wonder why you picked it. Actually, I don’t.
You’ve seriously misrepresented the historical issues with Selma.
And I don’t wonder much why you did it either.
Please be more specific.
Yeah, I thought you had nothing. But you should consider seeing the movie, or reading some books. You might learn something. Taylor Branch’s trilogy is great!
Yes. They are.
It’s odd to be so politically polarized that you can’t see this. Have you ever seen Bill O’Reilly on with Stewart? He’s definitely in on the joke, and is a funny guy.
Coulter includes intentionally funny parts in every column she writes.
Not sure if you’ve paid attention to the criticism of that film, from historians and people with actual knowledge of the events described.
You can start here: Selma (film) - Wikipedia
Which of the criticisms launched by associates of Johnson do you think is both historically correct and a correct characterization of the film? Be specific.
I’m guessing you haven’t even seen the film.
Yes, usually self-referential. 
Well, I’d agree, and I’d love to see precise statements/definitions/discussions/analyses of fine shades of political partisanship set aside as the masking and deflection they usually are, when it comes to issues of serious public policy.
But it’s practically to the point where you can’t say “Hey, how bout them [insert pro sports team here]” or “Say, this is some weather we’re having” without someone turning it into a McCarthyesque inquisition/diatribe.
I am not sure throwing gobs of a kind of political BS you agree with at political BS you don’t agree with constitutes sharp satire.
How about you answer this?
Is there any legitimate reason for you to characterize it as criticism from “associates of Johnson” when the link I provided also showed essentially the same criticism from an associate of King?
I’m guessing I know the answer to this too.
Because his associates were the only ones cited in your link who had any specific criticisms. Young says “the two were always mutually respectful, and King respected Johnson’s political problems.” King is more dismissed of Johnson’s political problems in the film than in reality, perhaps.
But we don’t have to play games. The truth is all you know about this is what you’ve read in the conservative media. You’re scrambling now to try to support your views because you were talking out of your ass.
In a narrow, pedantic sense, yes, they occasionally deliberately make statements intended to be humorous.
But that’s different from presenting themselves as comics who comment on the day’s relevant topics.
I find it hard to believe you don’t know the difference between a political commentator who has an occasionally visible sense of humor and a professional comic who delves into political commentary.
Fuck that. I’ll grant you the intelligence to know the difference and further claim you are making some bizarre narrowly technical statement to score imaginary debate points.
There’s no fundamental difference between “specific criticisms” and ordinary criticisms. Point is that Young - an associate of King - supported the claim that Johnson’s relationship with King and the civil rights movement was different than the depiction in the film. Which is the entire point.
But it serves your ends to pretend that all criticism of the film’s accuracy is coming from “associates of Johnson”. Understood.
The truth is that I don’t recall reading anything in “conservative media”, whatever that is (though I can’t guarentee that I haven’t seen a linked article along the way).
I would guess your comment is a projection based on your own MO.
Here’s an article from the “conservative media” about the matter, including:
Who said they did that?
That’s nice. It’s a given, since I didn’t say anything of the sort.
I think you’re projecting. Or something.
I made a simple statement that Liberals don’t have a monopoly on humor since while there are some unfunny conservatives there are plenty of conservatives that do have a sense of humor. I’m not saying they are professional comedians or anything. But they are professional entertainers, and humor is a part of what they do.
Clear?
No, you’ve been asked a half-dozen times to be specific. And the only specific (i.e., rebuttable) criticisms you offered came from Johnson’s associates, which is why I identified them as such.
And no, the whole point wasn’t that the film may have had any historical inaccuracy. The point was that you chose a film with very little inaccuracy as your example of “lies,” when there are many more obvious examples, including examples currently in theaters.
Why did you choose this one?
I suspect you will continue to dance and refuse to endorse any specific criticism because, again, you’re talking out of your ass.