c'mon, now, that was funny.
Posted on 03/05/2006 9:41:25 AM PST by flixxx
Wasn't he on MTV and then the host of his own UPN talk show (like Arsino) before he went the "comedy channel" route? All of those are Viacom owned (so he seems to be keeping it in the "family").
c'mon, now, that was funny.
There are two people on this earth that have never made me laugh one time" Jon Stewart and Adam Sandler.
Very well put. In essence they cater to those not-so-well informed and in the process are deemed funny and entertaining to those same ill-informed people.
I will say this though. Stewart is not as much an elitist as Maher and clearly not as flat-out mean. Maher is simply a punk who would benefit greatly by having his overbite adjusted with a right to face. It's interesting that the left accepts him to such a degree since he spends so much time at the Playboy Mansion and we've been told Hefner and Co. were little more than purveyors of female exploitation.
I really do miss Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in!!!
My 68 year old mother (and 73 year old father) got their first exposure to Jon Stewart (and the "news" show that follows it) when we ate out a couple of months ago. TV was on the resturant (not blaring loud, but loud enough it could be easily heard and no background music, little conversation, etc...).
She asked me "do people think that's funny?". Outside I explained that this is where young lefties get their understanding of news events. Especially now that is has been expanded to an hour.
I wish Rush had a tv show again (and not one ghettoed at 3am by programming director conflicts with the content). Not so much to get information to a "wider" or "more diverse" audience, but because there are things you can get from a video clip that you just can't get over the radio. And yet with internet you can let the audience download (or even find) something themselves but it isn't the same.
I don't subscribe to cable and would not as long as I was required to buy whole blocks of programming that I do not want to finance. You may boycott the programming but your $50 a month bill still gets divided up among the channels you aren't watching.
I've actaully talked to a fair number of liberals who don't like Jon Stewart because he's "too nice" to his conservative guests. I watch pretty regularly, and while Stewart is certainly liberal, he is funny, and better yet, he doesn't try to pretend he's NOT liberal. He doesn't claim to be fair and balanced, and yet, based on the way he treats his guests, he is more balanced than a lot of the MSM.
According to the tag at the end of the article, "Michael Kalin is a 2005 graduate of Harvard College."
He's making the argument that Stewart is Bad For America because he disillusions bright young Jewish liberal kids who otherwise would be the next generation of social engineers, but instead are going into (gasp!) private industry. (Which we're apparently supposed to assume is Bad).
The kid is not only humourless and irony-challenged, he's also rather poorly educated if he thinks disillusionment with social engineering can be traced to an obscure cable show. Frankly, you could make a much better case that the bright young Jewish core of the Democratic party, the gunbearers, hod carriers, and staffers, are not-breeding themselves out of existence.
Sounds to me more like what is happening here is that Michael Kalin is trying to defend to his pissed-off (and deeply indebted) parents, his decision to blow off the idea of a good-paying job, and instead become an "activist" for some core Democrat issue like vegan diets in schools, voting rights for incarcerated felons, or adoption rights for transsexual pedophiles.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Adam Sandler blows.
Jon Leibowitz was born in New York, though soon after moved to Lawrenceville, New Jersey. He graduated from the College Of William And Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. He made his breakthrough on "The Larry Sanders Show" (1992), before moving on to other roles.
He is overrated, and unfunny. His "comedy" bits go on way too long. I'm glad he got the huge hosting gig, classic Peter Principle.
I guess it's all subjective but I've never found him funny at all.
The old episodes are on DVD now (no complete set but several complete episodes). They are not chronological though.
An ensemble show like that (with guest stars right and left) would not be bad today but again, if the humor is going to insist that New Orleans was only Bush's fault and that he stole 2 elections, why bother giving them any support?
It would have to be something new. SNL is on too late, too incestuous, and jumped the shark a long time ago. Quick blackout gags are still popular among hispanics (tune into the Spanish language channels sometime) but much of tv isn't the same "as it was" years ago.
I totally agree. He tends to lean left in his humor, but at times he is hysterical.
The problem as I see it is that people actually "get their news" from him.
Throughout his formal education, Goldberg stayed up-to-date on national politics through nightly coverage on ''The Daily Show"...
I have a friend couple that does, and that's the extent of what they watch. They hate Bush with a passion to the extent that their issues and arguments are totally conservative, yet they lean left in voting and seem to think that libs will "aid in their cause."
As a comedy show, with the realization that it is, he's fine. But as a "source for news," that's a laugh. He's so utterly one-dimensional in his viewpoints and takes that it's laughable that any reasoning person would consider that any sort of credible news program. Must be for the masses that have the 24/7 need to have some external source amuse them.
If his brain is already this torqued, Michael has a long, self-induced miserable life ahead of him.
No matter--the Old Media world is so clogged now with info, these small potatoes like Maher and Stewart have a relatively tiny following compared to the broad audience of yesteryear--but it is bigger than the rest of the crowd, so these guys stand out.
NO BIG WHOOP. They'll eventually move on or their audience will grow tired of the schtick if and when they discover the leftwingnut point of view isn't accurate.
Darn it, some stories are just too good to turn out to be false...
Cheers!
Indeed. Richard Pryor was dirty, but pretty funny. Rodney Dangerfield in his prime was very funny. Never thought that George Carlin was very funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.