Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all subscription. 
They’re acting out a sketch from the show. I told you, it’s really not funny.
We have been. All for naught, it would seem.
Oh, shit, well why didn’t you just say you were teaching me to bray and cackle like a jackass dodging buckshot? Why use coy codewords like “growth”?
So, to recap:
[ol]
[li]The only thing you’ve retracted is your alleged “hypothesis” that right-wing people would like the show because left-wing people dislike it;[/li][li]“Leftists” are apparently supposed to be gracious and grateful for this;[/li][li]You still believe “leftists” only disliked the show because they’re filthy partisans, and;[/li][li]The fact that “they” are annoyed by this merely proves that you were right.[/li][/ol]
That’s what you’ve said, as I understand it. Perhaps you could point out which bit is wrong, because I’m utterly confused as to which point we were supposed to fall over ourselves and say, “gosh, isn’t that Lib a swell guy for owning up to his mistakes?”
I do apologise to those who still want to discuss the OP, and will shut up if there’s any great impetus to do so; to be fair, though, it seems like there’s more or less unanimous agreement that the show appears to suck.
This bit was funnier when Al Gore did it.
Right around the time of the 2004 election, there were a number of articles about The Daily Show. In the article, they declared themselves to be against BULLSHIT, regardless of the affiliation of the source.*
The fact that the right has had plenty of bullshit to spew and and unfettered access to channels to do so has meant that TDS has targeted them frequently. They frequently feature right-wing guests, and let them speak their minds, however, and one of the funniest lines I’ve heard all month was when Jon Stewart’s routine was suddenly interrupted by a choir of angel voices, and he said , “Wait! that sound can mean only one thing: Barack Obama did something!” They are not partisan, as a rule.
The fact that a non-partisan show frequently targeting the being an indication that the right currently has more bullshit on display seems to be lost on creators of “right wing comedy shows”. If the right is getting attacked, then they must attack back! Hence the faulty premise of this entertainment.
- Of course, they also said they were glad they were doing more stories about bullshit coming from the powerful, as opposed to propping up some eccentric nobody for ridicule, but I have noticed them returning all too frequently to THAT well in recent months.
Would you be good enough to rewrite this sentence, please? It’s making my head hurt.
This is what I’m getting from scotandrsn:
“The fact that a non-partisan anti-bullshit show frequently targets the right is an indication that the right currently has more bullshit on display. This seems to be lost on the creators of “right wing” comedy shows.”
True. I don’t really buy that TDS is “non-partisan”. They are pretty obviously liberal in worldview. However, they are extremely talented comedians, and they serve the funny first. Apos’ point also can’t be repeated enough, in my opinion, this is MEDIA CRITICISM on balance, not political satire. This does not remove that fact that the Bush administration could not be creating a more conducive environment for satire. They are the Fertile Crescent of satire.
:smack:
Before I started my Masters program, I couldn’t even SPELL software engineer, and now I ARE one!
That was no act. Did you never see him on the Late Late Show?
That was… awful. The “popularity down to 99.9%” joke might have been funny with decent delivery (coming from someone who sees the omnipresent Obama coverage in the Chicago Tribune) but that was the only part even approaching amusing.
And that laugh track couldn’t have been any more obvious.
Y’know, this could potentially pan out really well for the Daily Show. If THHNH dependably puts out truly feeble and witless footage lamely poking fun at the left, TDS can just use bits of it straight-up on their own show to highlight the quality differential.
They could do a mock-serious bit about wanting to add more balance to their reporting by including more voices from the conservative media—then show the dumbest, most unfunny anti-liberal clip from THHNH that they can find. The more ham-handed and clumsy THHNH is at handling political comedy, the funnier TDS will seem when they draw viewers’ attention to it.
Again, considering that Obama is trailing Hillary badly in every poll, the basis of the joke makes no sense.
Sure it does; it’s a reflection of the media’s obsession with BO (as it were), rather than the poll numbers, which are rather less frequently reported. And I thought the first bit of that clip was funny, but the transition to the fake magazine presentation was just awful.
It’s a common error. 33% is reality, 70% is funny, so 99.9% must be extremely funny!
Comedy follows the goldilocks rule, like many other things. The porridge can be too hot, as well as too cold. The key is to exaggerate just enough to make your point.
Of course, analyzing humor kills it as surely as fox-a-cizing it. I’m sorry.
Look it’s really quite simple. You are a blind partisan hack, whereas I am a fair-minded, completely unbiased paragon of logical and rational discusssion.
You={set of all people who are not this one}, I={this poster}. 
Now, that’s funny. 
Okay- I’ve been thinking about this 99.9% thing. It’s my curse.
Anyway, I realize this is contradicting myself somewhat and the elegance of the goldilocks thing goes out the window, but:
If the number had been over 100%, I think it would have been funny again. The number I am thinking of is 114%.
This is why comedy is so fun to argue about.
On further rumination, is it funnier to point how dumb someone is or how immoral someone is? If one had to choose a 90/10 split, which would work better comically? Is the HHNH more inclined to the latter?