He’s too often saying “cock” when “wiener” would be suffice, and be funnier, and also not have to be bleeped.
Actually, I would prefer that they not bleep anything, especially when I’m watching the 11pm broadcast of the show.
If anything, Stewart might be helping Wiener by pointing out how ridiculous the coverage of Wiener has become.
He said squeeze! Heh-heh!!!
I guess that should have been “squeeze out”.
Nah. Oliver is pretty dickish and while that’s par for the course of DS correspondents (and he’s one of the better ones), he’s best in small doses.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
In GD there is a thread about the dearth of conservative humor. This kind of shows why - Stewart, putting comedy first, went after a friend, while no conservative comics seem to have gone after the much funnier escapades of Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
Compare Stewart to Dennis Miller who when O’Reilly asked him to comment on Palin’s “Paul Revere” comments (the original and then the “I was right/it was a Gotcha question”) defended her (non comedically), trashed the left for making a big deal of it, then said “Why aren’t they going after Weiner?” (the feck? What comedians who’ve filmed anything since the story broke haven’t been going after Weiner?).
Miller is generally heralded as one of if not the greatest Republican wit. I would be interested in hearing from somebody more conservative than I am if he seems as bitter and angry and unfunny to them as he does to me.
I don’t disagree. I just think they should have let us think the guy was taking over for longer than they did. It was extremely short (33 seconds if you go by the clip.) To me, it didn’t have time to sink in, and lost a lot of its comedy.
And what’s with the bipolar take on humor around here? It’s either hilarious or unfunny crap? I’ve seen some Daily show things that weren’t hilarious, but the show has never been unfunny.
Agreed. Sometimes it’s not orgasmically hilarious. Doesn’t mean it’s not still fun to watch.
We have a lot of clinically depressed hyper-cynics around here. That’s kinda the way it goes.
Well, your claim is one thing i DO find hilarious.
I’ve been the biggest critic of The Daily Show’s Weiner coverage in this thread, but i’m also someone who’s a huge fan of the show, and who watches it every week.
Despite your misrepresentation of my position (it’s the second time this week you’ve done that, and in the other thread where you did it you haven’t even had to character and decency to return and apologize for attributing someone else’s words to me), i don’t believe that something is either “hilarious or unfunny crap.”
I’ve seen plenty of things on The Daily Show that i found hilarious. I’ve seen things that i found funny. I’ve seen things that i found mildly amusing and fun. And i’ve seen a few things that i found painfully unfunny. The Weiner coverage just happens to fall into the last category.
Your assertion that my critique represents a simple “bipolar” attitude to humor reflects nothing more than your own lack of understanding.
I lol’d when Oliver told him to quit being so Jewish about his cut. Then he came back and said, “If I convert to Catholicism, can I turn this into a drink?”
It was funny… but a bit too long. Probably partly due to Jon slicing his hand open.
This was the best part of the opening on Monday, and it was off the cuff. The second best part was on Tuesday night. Stewart said that when he told his six-year-old son about the accident, his son asked “Why didn’t you just use your other hand to turn off the blender?”
For that matter it was pretty funny when he mentioned the injury again last night while talking to a former Seal Team Six guy. The Navy Seal was talking about continuing in an operation in Mogadishu after being shot three times, and Stewart showed him his wrist.
I don’t have a problem with Stewart talking about his relationship with Anthony Weiner on the show. It’s part of his relationship with his audience. By this point you can tell they’re exhausted with doing this story every night. TV news has run it into the ground and so has the Daily Show. It was funny at first but it’s become tiring, and I think the TDS coverage reflects that. The moment of Zen Wednesday night focused on that and it was excellent.
I just watched it and found it hilarious. I do have one question though. I have an HD TV but taped it in low def (don’t ask) so the sides were cut off. What was the gag with the Moment of Zen? They showed a woman being interviewed and focused on something on the right side of the screen but for me it was cut off so i couldn’t see it. What was it?
The woman’s cat is licking its crotch while she’s being interviewed. Go, cat, go.
This is the one I was talking about. Quoth the anchor, “We had intended to report on those five young American men lost in Iraq today, the implications of the 9.1-percent unemployment rate, and the
two key countries on the brink, Yemen and Syria. That, as you just saw play out live here on CNN, changed in a matter of moments. Now, more on the confessions of Congressman Anthony Weiner, in the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”
Well, I found the bit pretty darned funny.
But all the Weiner schtick paled in comparison to the *‘Captain CombOver’ eating Pizza with a fork *bit.
I didn’t attribute anything to you at all, and never even mentioned you. You decided on your own who I was talking about. I was talking about how, in this thread, it’s either the funniest thing ever or completely unfunny.
But, yes, the terms I used were inspired by your post. You did say it was “painfully unfunny,” “embarrassing,” and “one of the most poorly-done stories i’ve ever seen on the show.” You are getting mad because I condensed that all down latter down to just “crap”? That’s clearly what you are saying. The entire story was unfunny crap. Just because you are upset at me in one thread, don’t let it color you judgement elsewhere.
And, sorry, when I respond to threads, I don’t sit there anxiously waiting to see who is going to respond. I say what I want to say and I move on. There is unfortunately no way to know whether someone has responded to you unless you see the thread. And if the thread doesn’t pop up on top while I still happen to be on, or it isn’t so interesting a thread that I’ve subscribed to it, I don’t see it. You are attributing to malice what is done in ignorance.
In fact, I honestly have no idea what thread you are talking about, and there doesn’t seem to be an easy way to search for threads where I’ve responded to someone else. But, one way or the other, I know the response was due to one of us not understanding the other, seeing as I would remember if I intentionally mischaracterized someone’s position, seeing as I’ve only done it a handful of times in my life.
I did indeed say that the story was unfunny crap. Repeated it more than once, in fact.
The stupid observation you made was to extrapolate my opinion about this one story to a claim that there is a “bipolar take on humor around here” whereby something is “either hilarious or unfunny crap.” Your observation, whether made directly in response to my post or not, is stupid because it simply isn’t true. It’s your own fantasy interpretation.
When i respond to threads, and especially if i respond to another person individually, i DO generally go back and see what their response is. That’s why i’m on this board—to have a conversation, not just to blow my trumpet and move on. At least you’re willing to admit to ignorance, though. That’s a start.
Anyway, here’s the post where i point out that you attributed something to me that i never said. Not only did you “quote” me as saying something that i never said, you used this fabricated quote to accuse me of making a dishonest argument.
Like BigT said, this isn’t about you, but it is true. Go to any thread about a sitcom and looks at the opinions from week to week. Every episode is either the funniest episode ever, or the most unfunny piece of crap. You don’t see a lot of people posting “It was okay.”
You might be right; i don’t participate too much in those threads.
If i could hazard a guess, though, the rather binary responses might be due to the fact that people are often inspired to hold forth about things that they really like or really hate.