(no subject)

[lather2002.livejournal.com]

Comments

[xforge.livejournal.com]

I can't see this, it's blocked by our corporate firewall, but I know because of who posted it that it's lame, stupid, hateful and mindbogglingly ignorant.

[name-omitted.livejournal.com]

Wow. You took time out of your precious day to actively rip on something you can't even see?

Learn to ignore posts from individuals. It's cheaper than Norvasc.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

I'm a helpdesk technician working alone on a Sunday. I have some free time.

He has all the evidence necessary:

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Lather2002 posted it.

This guarantees that it will be the worst sort of hyperbolic rightard talking point regurgitation.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Worse than ellie_kay, but not as bad as latuff.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Unfamiliar with latuff, must have been brief or before my time here... oh look, journal deleted and purged. lol

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

http://latuff2.deviantart.com/gallery/

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Latuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Latuff

The latest stuff in his gallery there don't look too bad, so maybe he's calmed down a bit. For quite a while, though, he was churning out some truly Dees (http://www.deesillustration.com/ps1.html)-worthy crap, except with even more Jew-hate.

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

It's another NewsBusted repost, which involves a conservatively dressed (for Fox & Friends) anchorwoman reading from the 1976 Reagan playbook accompanied by a laugh track. HILARIOUS!

[thies.livejournal.com]

The sound of crickets chirping instead of the laugh track would made it funny

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

What's kind of odd is that Jon Stewart could probably tell the same, if not similar jokes, and get a huge laugh. I mean, some of them are just talking points with a laugh track, but the "ridiculously fawning approval" joke would totally work for his show.

The problem she has is twofold:

She sits there and deadpans it with a terrible "I'm gonna be funny" look on her face. Stewart at least laughs and interacts with the audience when they find something funny.

The second problem is that she means it.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Stephen Colbert could tell the same jokes and get a huge laugh. When that happens, what's funny is that his 'character' thinks it's funny, resulting in meta-lulz for us because we know he knows we know he's goofin'.

...Maybe we've got this lather2002 guy all wrong.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

I agree--I certainly not all the jokes were good.

And yes, the teleprompter one came to mind as well. Colbert could totally tell that joke and it would get a lot of laughs.

But that's the core of the difference: Colbert is a buffoon, and Stewart is the straight man.

This woman, on the other hand, is just the deadpan.

Ronald Reagan is a ZOMBIE!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Re: Ronald Reagan is a ZOMBIE!

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Is this oekaki? It's really well rendered.

Re: Ronald Reagan is a ZOMBIE!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I did a google search for REAGAN ZOMBIE and got this. :D

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

Most of the jokes are only moderately lame, the bad delivery makes them sound dumber than they are

[catbirdgirl.livejournal.com]

I had no idea what to expect and well... not funny at all.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

I think I counted four takes.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

What's sad is that almost every video is like that. They never do it in one shot.

That's of course unlike Colbert and Stewart who, for the most part, are completely live-to-tape. (I was in the studio audience once when Colbert screwed up the wording on something so bad they had to re-shoot it).

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

It's pretty sad that she already has the heavy-smoker voice going. She's going to sound like Gary Busey in ten years.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Ha! Iconlove.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

You guys post these same fucking rants over and over as if President Obama inherited a peaceful country and surplus from George W. Bush and fucked everything in the six meager months he's been in office. And as if the next future GOP president (whenever that is) will actually scale back government spending one iota.

Both parties love government spending, etc. Where the difference is is two-fold. One is that Democrats do want to, yes, actually pay for it, and taxes has to be a part of that (and keep in mind Obama's proposed increases would still put the tax rate lower than Reagan had it, not to mention 50 percentage points lower than under Eisenhower), while Republicans just create debt, foreign and domestic, to pay for it. The other difference is in what they actually spend the money on. As we saw with Bush, conservatives spend money (debt-funded) on upper-class tax cuts and military projects and war and in subsidies and payoffs to big industries, etc. Democrats prefer instead to spend money on socially progressive programs like health-care or a stimulus or alternative energy and that sort of thing.

It may sometimes seem like a pick your poison choice, but I'll take the latter any day.

I am kind of looking forward to the next time a Republican is president. That is the day they will magically stop caring about 'big government' and deficits again.

Then government can go back to its true priorities... military occupations, endless tax cuts, and forcing feeding tubes into brain-dead ladies.

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

This is unspeakably awful. Bailout jokes were passe three months ago.