Reply With Quote
They need to stick with the 'fair and balanced' news coverage...
Liberal Gun Control:
Three Athiests:
ACLU Commercials:
Dennis Miller; The Buck Starts Here:
8 mihute preview from Fox News:
President Limbaugh:
1/21/09:
100 days:
on vacation:
They need to stick with the 'fair and balanced' news coverage...
Oh come on. It's funny stuff. Here's another funny one:They need to stick with the 'fair and balanced' news coverage...
the only thing missing from that comedy show.......was comedy.
It's not over your heard is it?
Please. This is funny stuff...
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/...parations-2003
no...it's not over my "heard".
whats the one thing a comedy show needs to stay afloat?
I'm an atheist, and took a look at the atheist one.
The heart attack was in poor taste... would've been funnier if he was, say, hit by lightning. Also, deliberately explaining the 'joke'... not funny.
However, the third guy changing his stance was pretty good though.
I don't get the hatred towards ACLU from conservatives.
The Limbaugh bit sucked :p
Well, lightning would have been overboard, and actually make God's presence less deniable. You may not like the stye of humor, but it helps to have a similar perspective.They are almost always on the wrong side of morality.I'm an atheist, and took a look at the atheist one.
The heart attack was in poor taste... would've been funnier if he was, say, hit by lightning. Also, deliberately explaining the 'joke'... not funny.
However, the third guy changing his stance was pretty good though.
[QUOTE=LnGrrrR]You just don't like his style. You also have to remember that they are using what liberals believe of them, and that's part of the joke. I especially liked the Gun Free zone one. It's so laughable that criminals will not commit crimes because it's a Gun Free Zone.
I can only listen to about 3 minutes of Hush's show before I throw up in my mouth...I'm an atheist, and took a look at the atheist one.
The heart attack was in poor taste... would've been funnier if he was, say, hit by lightning. Also, deliberately explaining the 'joke'... not funny.
However, the third guy changing his stance was pretty good though.
I don't get the hatred towards ACLU from conservatives.
The Limbaugh bit sucked :p
Wow... what perverse thoughts you have with nothing to trigger it.
did your daddy touch your wee-wee when you were little or what
I pitty you.
[quote=Wild Cobra;3610758]
The Gun Free Zone was funny.
And ACLU doesn't care whether or not something is moral... it just defends legality/cons utionality.
Which do you think is more important? I mean, I don't like the KKK, but I don't think they should be denied freedom of speech.
The ACLU protects pedophiles! BWA HA HA HA! It's funny because it's true!
This is comedy for stupid people. It's not witty or unpredictable, it's just affirmation of the viewers' opinions. Just because it has a live audience and laughter at certain key points doesn't make it comedy.
I disagree with that as their motive. It's a ruse in my opinion. They don't have to take on the cases that they do. I see them as an American hate group, and uses the cons ution to hurt us.
Actually, I agree they aren't funny. Those spoofs were direct attracts against the ACLU. I think they did a good job of exposing what the ACLU does.
So you're a libertarian who doesn't think your liberties should be defended.
Coming from you, that makes perfect sense.
How can they use the Cons ution to hurt us by defending it?
They defend hate groups, yes, but the whole point of the 1st Amendment is to protect speech we don't like.
They've defended both crazy right-wing lunatics and crazy left-wing lunatics. They've fought cases for expression of religion in some instances, and against it in others, depending on the situation.
Edit: Also, you're right that they don't HAVE to take the cases. They choose to take cases on the extreme fringe, because A) that's where the law gets defined and B) they know that public opinion is against one side usually, and feel that side should have good representation.
Isn't it obvious?
Speech yes. Probelm is, over the years, activist judges have redefined speech to include actions.
Most the cases they take are a means to the destruction of the Heart of America. Along the way, they have to take some credible cases too, or else be too obvious.
Do you think either is right? This becomes a complicated issue, but when you take one precedent, then build others upon that, it no longer resembles what the cons ution means.
no, because it was the most unfunny comedy ever
Well excuse me for liking a different comedy style than most. Besides, I seem to be one of the few who doesn't like Monty Python.
what comedy style do you like?
the non-comedy style....cuz you don't want laughter to get in the way.?
I don't know what the style is called, but I like comedy that has more intelligence than that.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand this, and those who don't.
but you don't know what it's called.
Maybe you should ask if I care. I don't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
