Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's anti-semetic, but...

[travis1985]

Oh look, it's a 30 year old Bill O'Reilly fan. How original.

I care even less for Bill O'Reilly.

 

[TheBestYouCan]

The late Patrice O'Neal makes great points when he talks about how comedians should be free to attempt to be funny. That means sometimes having jokes that bombs or offend. As to the OP's question about "Why isn't the media focusing on his "sexist" comments"? I don't know. Probably because most people realize that comedians say all sorts of normally vile and offensive things in the pursuit of a laugh, and that's okay. They aren't politicians in positions of power, they are comedians usually using observational comedy about what most people experience in life to illicit laughs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8athiZjqF0

 

[chrysler fanatic]

I think if you're a comedian you get a pass to make make fun of anything, but why isn't anyone talking about how he's not funny?

 

[AlteredEgo]

A little of one and a whole lot of the other.

LOL

I care even less for Bill O'Reilly.

Bill would be okay if if he would let his guests speak. There is no such thing as an opposing view on his show. My husband used to watch it in the morning while getting ready for work. It just agitated me, which is not the best way to start one's day. Eventually he came to the same conclusion. Also, why is his word of the day always one of the same 9 ways to call people stupid?

The late Patrice O'Neal makes great points when he talks about how comedians should be free to attempt to be funny. That means sometimes having jokes that bombs or offend. As to the OP's question about "Why isn't the media focusing on his "sexist" comments"? I don't know. Probably because most people realize that comedians say all sorts of normally vile and offensive things in the pursuit of a laugh, and that's okay. They aren't politicians in positions of power, they are comedians usually using observational comedy about what most people experience in life to illicit laughs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8athiZjqF0

If that's the case, why are they focused on his supposed anti-semetic comments in the first place? My question really is why get butt hurt over one, but not the other?

I think if you're a comedian you get a pass to make make fun of anything, but why isn't anyone talking about how he's not funny?

Several posts in this thread do discuss the fact that he's not good at comedy. I do wonder why none of his public naysayers seem to be questioning his abysmal sense of humor.

 

[944592]

whee

I'm dyin' here. :-D

 

[travis1985]

Bill would be okay if if he would let his guests speak. There is no such thing as an opposing view on his show. My husband used to watch it in the morning while getting ready for work. It just agitated me, which is not the best way to start one's day. Eventually he came to the same conclusion. Also, why is his word of the day always one of the same 9 ways to call people stupid?

Beats the hell out of me. Political media seems to be very little but buzzwords designed to call the perceived opposition stupid. I'll admit to quickly losing my patience with trying to watch any of it.

 

[Moez???]

Why are you hanging out in women's issues if you're going to just disagree with every single post in here?

every post?

you mean 2?

all 2 of the "every single post heres" that I responded to were over reactions to borderline petty things. This comedian obviously isn't anti-anything. Comedians offend a lot of people. get over it or stop listening to comedy.

 

[5104]

More interesting is speculating on why the powers that be behind the major media chose an anti-Semitic misogynist comedian to program the Proles? Obviously to promote the increasingly brazen pro-Muslim bent of the petro-dollar re-cycling Rockefeller / Saudi / OPEC Establishment.

 

[ActionBuddy]

How often will he be on?

Five times a week.

Nope!... Four nights a week, not five. Mon-Thurs.

I don't bother with Twitter and the idiotic, sudden thoughts that people drunkenly "tweet"... No time for that, no matter the subject.

We'll see what happens, and whether the show even survives after Jon Stewart's departure.

Trevor_Noah is obviously a very intelligent, and thoughtful man, (fluent in 6 languages!), well read, well dressed, who has a wicked sense of humor that fucks with people's preconceptions about race, religions, and sex, but, let's face it, he also comes off like such a fancy, bow-tied, prep-school-snot that I don't know if he will become relate-able to the late-night TV masses.

Best of luck to him, and the show, but, I think that The Daily Show's Al Madrigal would have been a better, much funnier, more embraceable, and more progressive choice as a new host.

A/B

 

[littleguyhugedick]

I will not watch him. What a jerk

 

[andaludisco]

While I am not condoning or excusing, I think culte plays a huge role in what is accetable. I was born on the east coast went to hs in Oklahoma and have since live on every continet eccxept Africa and humor is very diverse, Americans (USA) being the pc police. Here in rural Andalucia we make jokes that would probably get you fired in the US, so maybe in place of pc movement a thick skin campaign would have been better.

 

[andaludisco]

While I am not condoning or excusing, I think culte plays a huge role in what is accetable. I was born on the east coast went to hs in Oklahoma and have since live on every continet eccxept Africa and humor is very diverse, Americans (USA) being the pc police. Here in rural Andalucia we make jokes that would probably get you fired in the US, so maybe in place of pc movement a thick skin campaign would have been better.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Maybe, and maybe not. Political correctness is about using linguistic changes to alter thinking and end bigotry insomuch as that is possible.

 

[temptotalk]

More interesting is speculating on why the powers that be behind the major media chose an anti-Semitic misogynist comedian to program the Proles? Obviously to promote the increasingly brazen pro-Muslim bent of the petro-dollar re-cycling Rockefeller / Saudi / OPEC Establishment.

Was just passing by and i noticed your comment. One in particular. "to program the Proles". If i remember correctly, the proles were a group of people that wouldn't or couldn't fight for what they believed in. They were mostly content with their situation and even had moments of memory lapses. They held on to old sentiments from the past and generally just would not stand up to the big bad that was.

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a defense for the guy. What he said was indeed fucked up and wrong.

But...major media? And how does not labeling every muslim in existence as a terrorist become a brazen pro-muslim bend? Not even gonna ask how the show and it's watchers are connected to everything else you said. Seeing as how they've gone on record as making fun of many if not all of those things in the past as a show. Ok general rant over.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Was just passing by and i noticed your comment. One in particular. "to program the Proles". If i remember correctly, the proles were a group of people that wouldn't or couldn't fight for what they believed in. They were mostly content with their situation and even had moments of memory lapses. They held on to old sentiments from the past and generally just would not stand up to the big bad that was.

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a defense for the guy. What he said was indeed fucked up and wrong.

But...major media? And how does not labeling every muslim in existence as a terrorist become a brazen pro-muslim bend? Not even gonna ask how the show and it's watchers are connected to everything else you said. Seeing as how they've gone on record as making fun of many if not all of those things in the past as a show. Ok general rant over.

Proles, a shortening of the word proletariat, were the working-class. Nothing more, nothing less. They would not stand up for themselves because they were generally kept fed and distracted. They could not stand up for themselves because any capable of independent thought were struck down by the thought police. That's in the book 1984. However, I think LloydBaker really meant the proletariat, the working stiffs in the USA who don't realize when they are being bamboozled and disenfranchised as long as you indoctrinate them slowly, and in an entertaining or frightening way. Now, whether or not you agree with him that there is indoctrination happening via the Daily Show or not, is another matter. For most of its history, I think the show has flown in the face of any attempts to anesthetize the populace in preparation for indoctrination. And I disagree with anyone's assertion that the new host is anti-semetic. He's certainly anti-Israel, but that's not quite the same thing.

 

[temptotalk]

Proles, a shortening of the word proletariat, were the working-class. Nothing more, nothing less. They would not stand up for themselves because they were generally kept fed and distracted. They could not stand up for themselves because any capable of independent thought were struck down by the thought police. That's in the book 1984. However, I think LloydBaker really meant the proletariat, the working stiffs in the USA who don't realize when they are being bamboozled and disenfranchised as long as you indoctrinate them slowly, and in an entertaining or frightening way. Now, whether or not you agree with him that there is indoctrination happening via the Daily Show or not, is another matter. For most of its history, I think the show has flown in the face of any attempts to anesthetize the populace in preparation for indoctrination. And I disagree with anyone's assertion that the new host is anti-semetic. He's certainly anti-Israel, but that's not quite the same thing.

Oh i agree with you. I think the show has. As far as i can see though, conservatives and republicans have been the ones just following the line. Any time fox news comes up with some crazy insane notion the internet explodes with the exact same rhetoric and bullshit. They follow the status quo so much that they vote against their own best interests a good 90% of the time.

Thats what kind of confused me. Liberals and democrats are traditionally those that are protesting, raising awareness, fighting legislation and generally calling for equality among the people. Equal rights, equal pay you name it and liberals and democrats have said something about it.

I'm speaking in general terms here because it isn't all all the time. The story was highly generalized so no one group will fall into any of the books main points. But...if we were to attempt to cram a group in there.

It would be the group that voted against the rights of it's own people multiple times. It would be the group that is constantly manipulating information to fit their agenda. The group that consistently creates legislation to benefit a small group of greedy people with more wine and salt than the rest. The group that is for unequal pay, treatment and rights of women. The group that would send troops into a fake war then lie then cover up it's tracks. The group that is/was for spying on it's own. The group against universal anything. The group with ties to other countries that are in agreement with financial hand shaking.

I mean, it's too many things to list. And like i said, i don't think any one group could completely be mirrored in the book but like i also said...if we were to cram it. If were to take the political history of the last few decades and look for something similar in that book. People like LloydBaker would then have to rethink their whole opinion of just about everything.

Cause i never forgot who started the war on terror, or the war on drugs. I also never forgot the reasons behind it. Apparently though, there are people out there that think 2 + 2 = 5.

 

[Fuzzy_]

I wouldn't classify those tweets as comedy.

What a pig. I'd really hoped Jessica Williams or Samantha Bee would've taken over.

Samantha Bee would have done a great job. Jason Jones wasn't a bad either, if the spot had to go to an alumnus. So many greats, like Stephen Colbert and John Oliver, came out of that show.

Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon are great political commentators but they have bigger gigs going on. As of now, the best for the job, IFHO, would be Joel McHale.

 

[5104]

Thats what kind of confused me. Liberals and democrats are traditionally those that are protesting, raising awareness, fighting legislation and generally calling for equality among the people. Equal rights, equal pay you name it and liberals and democrats have said something about it..

Yes, but what if that perspective is wrong?

What if the really big money (far bigger than the Kochs and Rupert Murdock) are the ones behind the liberals? That really big money is the Rockefellers, in league with the Saudis/OPEC who set the Establishment thinking on all levels via their network of Foundations and think tanks and control of the major media? David Rockefeller and his tool Zbigniew Brzezinski formed the Trilateral Commission, the largest organized concentration of capital the world has ever seen. Just a co-incidence that Brzezinski's daughter got a job on MSNBC? Always look to the dominant power to be the most demagogic, ie. "phoney liberal". . . yup, behind Obama, the Clintons, etc. Goldman Sachs is the Rockefeller investment bank. Soros also fronts for them. The enemies of the Rockefeller OPEC petrodollar re-cycling cabal is the traditional Jewish pro-Israel financial forces currently behind the Republican Party whose mouthpieces are Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

If you think this is all fantasy, read David Rockefeller's Autobiography for a sanitized version. David must be about ready to pass away, but he has plenty of family members groomed to fill his shoes.

 

[5104]

Cause i never forgot who started the war on terror, or the war on drugs. I also never forgot the reasons behind it. Apparently though, there are people out there that think 2 + 2 = 5.

The Rockefeller allies, the Saudis, started the war on terror via 911. No longer is the US stalwartly behind Israel under Rockefeller stooge Obama. American is caving to Islam.

You might not be old enough to remember that Nelson Rockefeller, when Governor of NY, started the war on drugs with his draconian sentencing law. Then Rockefeller stooge Nixon took in National.

 

[temptotalk]

Yes, but what if that perspective is wrong?

What if the really big money (far bigger than the Kochs and Rupert Murdock) are the ones behind the liberals? That really big money is the Rockefellers, in league with the Saudis/OPEC who set the Establishment thinking on all levels via their network of Foundations and think tanks and control of the major media? David Rockefeller and his tool Zbigniew Brzezinski formed the Trilateral Commission, the largest organized concentration of capital the world has ever seen. Just a co-incidence that Brzezinski's daughter got a job on MSNBC? Always look to the dominant power to be the most demagogic, ie. "phoney liberal". . . yup, behind Obama, the Clintons, etc. Goldman Sachs is the Rockefeller investment bank. Soros also fronts for them. The enemies of the Rockefeller OPEC petrodollar re-cycling cabal is the traditional Jewish pro-Israel financial forces currently behind the Republican Party whose mouthpieces are Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

If you think this is all fantasy, read David Rockefeller's Autobiography for a sanitized version. David must be about ready to pass away, but he has plenty of family members groomed to fill his shoes.

I kind of wish that perspective were wrong.