AROUND THE WORLD

10/29/2009 4:12:10 PM

so in the mind of some, splashing = urinating on?

10/29/2009 5:26:06 PM

LOL! Valerie Jarrett, senior White House adviser, gets zinged on the "FOX News is biased, blah, blah, blah. . ." bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFX6hVFlqW4

10/29/2009 5:29:04 PM

^^ Like I said, I'm not particularly offended by Larry David, but it isn't as if this were an accident. This was a television show. Getting urine on a painting of Jesus was written into the script. Having two women mistake urine for tears was part of the script.

The entire point of the scene was to get pee on Jesus.

10/29/2009 5:43:36 PM

and to make me laff

mission accomplished

10/29/2009 6:28:58 PM

I wish they had peed on Muhammed. That would be real funny

10/29/2009 7:10:46 PM

^ I hope that you're not serious. That is an incredibly offensive thing to say.

10/29/2009 7:20:13 PM

That would also have been funny, yes.

10/29/2009 7:20:22 PM

Quote :

"I wish they had peed on Muhammed. That would be real funny "

At least then we wouldn’t have to hear about all the X-tians whining about it.

They should have pissed on the first amendment, that seems to be what Fox wants.

[Edited on October 29, 2009 at 7:32 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2009 7:32:15 PM

There are a bunch of internet sites devoted to people pissing on each other. If we're created in the image of god, why doesn't fox get all upset about that?

10/29/2009 7:44:23 PM

^^ Are you serious? A Jew pissing on Mohammad?



Yeah, no one would say peep about that.

Quote :

"They should have pissed on the first amendment, that seems to be what Fox wants."

I haven't really paid attention, but did Fox call for any legal ramifications against Larry David, or did it simply bring up that some people were offended and that it could be considered in poor taste?

10/29/2009 8:01:15 PM

^ i didn’t say no one would say peep, but no Americans, and certainly not Fox News would really care.

10/29/2009 8:03:27 PM

You were bitching about Christians (a group I've regularly criticized) being upset that someone would make a joke of micturating on their messiah. That would seem to imply that the expected Islamic reaction (remember the Dutch cartoon in 2005) would be less asinine. I doubt it.

10/29/2009 8:05:18 PM

^^ What a disingenuous fuck. Yeah, the Muslims will only riot, issue worldwide death threats, and conspire in murder plots--that's if you simply draw a cartoon they don't like.

Chicago men charged in Denmark terror plot
October 27, 2009

Quote :

"CHICAGO - Two Chicago men have been arrested on federal charges for their alleged roles in conspiracies to provide material support and/or to commit terrorist acts against overseas targets, including facilities and employees of a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2005, federal law enforcement officials announced today."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/10/chicago_men_charged_in_denmark.html

STFU.

10/29/2009 8:08:39 PM

^^ I can see how you would think that, but I don’t think the amount of muslims and the type of muslims in the US would really care.

I’m sure if a news agency reported on it in an extremist muslim area, they would get pissed, just like how our more looney christians are getting pissed, but we in the US wouldn’t really have to worry too much about our news agency spending much time discussing how upsetting it is to them.

10/29/2009 8:11:38 PM

Quote :

"Chicago men charged in Denmark terror plot"

10/29/2009 8:13:14 PM

It’s perhaps noteworthy that in the episode, Larry David was lamenting the urine hitting the painting, and it was purely accidental. It’s not like he was trying to be offensive, in the context of the episode.

10/29/2009 8:16:11 PM

Like I said, I don't care, I'm just pointing out the reaction of Kirk Cameron fans vs. throwing molotov cocktails at the Danish Embassy.

10/29/2009 8:25:23 PM

^ It’s a good thing we aren’t Denmark I guess.

If were on a landmass with a muslim country, we’d have to tip-toe around more, but that’s just life.

[Edited on October 29, 2009 at 8:33 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2009 8:28:25 PM

Quote :

"I don't think we need the federal government trying to determine what is or is not high art."

then how about we also not have the federal gov't funding art, then? I mean, if you are going to fund it, you damned well be ready to explain why you are funding it.

10/29/2009 8:31:34 PM

jews cant piss on pictures of Mohammed (pbuh) because there ARE no pictures of Mohammed (pbuh). because its anathema to even have a single likeness of the Prophet (pbuh).

now you see the wisdom in the rulings of the Caliphs so that no images would be made of the Prophet (pbuh): so there wouldnt be any dirty jews shaking their dirty mangled jew penises (penii?) around pictures of the Prophet (pbuh) getting their dirty jew piss all over the Prophet's beautiful face (pbuhbf).

...

Quote :

"The entire point of the scene was to get pee on Jesus."

"pee on Jesus"? damn, it almost sounds like someone ran over your dog.

you know, he didn't really "pee on Jesus". for one thing, it wasn't really pee (it was a stage prop), and for another thing, it wasn't Jesus. it was just a cheap print. they sell them by the gross. probably 90% of them wind up in some dumpster or other being shit on by seagulls and bums.

are you going to cry for those Jesuses (Jesi?) also?






[Edited on October 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM. Reason : ]

10/30/2009 2:15:05 AM

^WINNAR WINNAR CHICKEN DINNAR

10/30/2009 2:17:38 AM

Quote :

""pee on Jesus"? damn, it almost sounds like someone ran over your dog."

context my good schmoe. Like I said, I didn't personally care. I realize it wasn't real pee, I realize it wasn't the real Jesus.

I'm just saying Larry David wrote a script that involved the visual illusion of urine being splashed on a likeness of Jesus. I can see that being offensive.

Point taken about the Prophet specifically, my point about angry first world Christians vs. angry third world Muslims isn't without it's own charming merit.

10/30/2009 1:51:17 PM

10/30/2009 3:18:42 PM

Quote :

"If were on a landmass with a muslim country, we’d have to tip-toe around more, but that’s just life."

Eh? I'm guessing by landmass you mean Eurasia. Given the distance to cover, I think you're grasping at straws here.

and FTR I don't care about this. My muslim statement was obviously to just make a point.

(I haven't seen the episode or even any news articles about it)

10/30/2009 4:31:59 PM

what was your point, exactly?

this is epic, btw

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-

[Edited on October 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2009 2:06:02 AM

Thank god Fox News doesn't watch South Park:

10/31/2009 2:28:20 AM

Christians ought to be insulted by this. The question is, why is it wrong to insult Christians? Have the Christians not been insulting our conscience for the last 2,000 years, telling us that we're to burn in hell if we don't accept their ridiculous superstitions? This would seem to be small potatoes compared to that.

10/31/2009 5:52:06 AM

^ Yeah that about sums up my perception

^^^ the only epic thing about that clip is Stewart's blind spot for the fact that the hard-news / opinion breakdown is pretty much the same across MSNBC and CNN, the White House has not just singled out a specific news station for criticism but actively tried to strangle their flow of information and recruited other organizations to help him (which they have obviously rejected) and that folks like Rick Sanchez, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olberman make equally obnoxious statements (Chris Matthews has advocated the killing of Rush Limbaugh . . . something no Fox commentator has advocated) but because they fall towards Mr. Stewart's side of the political spectrum, he doesn't find them as outlandish.

Fox gets attention because they are the only station who isn't dominated by leftish commentary. Any criticism of Fox without an equal examination of all the channels is disingenuous and self-serving.

10/31/2009 8:48:35 AM

Obama is just speaking truth to power, yall. Don't hate

10/31/2009 8:54:11 AM

Quote :

"Eh? I'm guessing by landmass you mean Eurasia. Given the distance to cover, I think you're grasping at straws here. "

Not really. Look up the demographics and history of the european countries, they have more muslims than us generally. It’s because muslims can migrate their easier, and back in the days, muslims tried to invade europe.

Who do you think has more mexicans, canada or ireland?

Quote :

"Fox gets attention because they are the only station who isn't dominated by leftish commentary. Any criticism of Fox without an equal examination of all the channels is disingenuous and self-serving. "

This statement itself is disingenuous. Fox has a higher rate of “outlandish” statements, and as stewart pointed out, they actively manufacture controversy and opposition.

[Edited on October 31, 2009 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2009 10:40:14 AM

fox news polls, fair and balanced:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/28/lieberman-republicans-filibuster-public-option/

10/31/2009 10:54:41 AM

ahahaha, yeah, that is pretty awful. I'm not saying Fox is great . . . just that it isn't significantly worse than the rest of the big networks when taken in total. CNN tries to maintain a veneer of respectability but when you listen to what they say (instead of how they say it) they're about on par with the best of Fox and MSNBC trolls right along the bottom with the worst of Fox.

10/31/2009 11:19:51 AM

really? you're telling me that CNN is secretly a bunch of biased trolls, but they somehow maintain a thin veneer journalistic credibility so nobody really notices?

is that what you're saying? do you have any examples?

i'm asking seriously, because i dont watch CNN or any cable news. i aggregate my news intake from various online, print and radio.

10/31/2009 2:51:05 PM

I'm referring specifically to their commentators, not to the news portion.





Now what do you think the reaction would have been if a Fox commentator had said something along those lines?


OTOH, I've run down the numbers in another thread and given a pretty good background of why I feel the media is biased towards the left. For the record, I find nothing inherently wrong with this. I think any news program should be allowed to present the news as it sees fit. Personally, I think one of the best news sources out there is the Economist and they regularly editorialize in their articles. However, they always precede it with, "it is the position of this newspaper that . . . " I think news organizations should do the same.

What bothers me is the criticism directed at Fox (as it should be) while nary a critical eye is cast upon other news sources (except that cast by Fox itself).

10/31/2009 2:57:33 PM

wait, wait.


(1) I asked about CNN. that is MSNBC. a big difference. chris fucking matthews, world renown douchebag, doesnt work for CNN.

(2) Fox news's ridiculous bias is evident throughout their *non-commentary*. it's all over their supposed "news" reporting, with their polls and their headlines and their manufactured stories.

I'm asking you, where does CNN do the outlandish shenaningans that Fox News does?

10/31/2009 3:05:34 PM

Sorry, you are correct. I could pull up the CNN clip on the Tea Party, but that was just one reporter so I'll leave that one alone.


I couldn't find any specific examples online in a quick search so I'll admit that this is a result of my impression over time rather than anything I can give you hard right now. I'll see if I can't work something up when I've got more time.



You win for now though joe_schmoe

10/31/2009 3:21:47 PM

Aahhaha I was just catching up on my Curb Your Enthusiasm and had totally forgotten about the OMG OUTRAGE about the newest episode. As CYE episodes go, with regards to offensiveness, I'd say it was about a 3. WRT hilariousness, I give it a 6.

11/1/2009 2:19:43 AM

Quote :

"On Sunday they handed over the first half of their hour-long Sunday show to an interview with bombastic radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh A hard-hitting interview it surely wasn't."

here's the first couple minutes. just note the first question. "what has obama done for and to the country"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-xIvh8ZNDw

11/1/2009 2:08:50 PM

This is embarrassing seeing Bloomberg listed as a Republican on Fox News... just embarrassing.

11/3/2009 9:15:24 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfCmbZhbhk

11/4/2009 12:54:19 AM

Faux and Fiends is a riot this morning. Team Circle Jerk is in full force.

11/4/2009 7:24:18 AM

oh please, like there wasn't a circle jerk on ever freaking channel when obama was elected?

11/4/2009 8:09:52 AM

There tends to be a circle jerk on just about every freaking channel every freaking day. At least when a commentary program is on the air.

11/4/2009 8:24:40 AM

oh but i thought none of the liberal channels circle jerked... they just "panel"

11/4/2009 8:41:41 AM

Quote :

"oh please, like there wasn't a circle jerk on ever freaking channel when obama was elected?"

Haha b/c electing the first black president is the exactly the same as a couple of governors, Mr. Independent.

11/4/2009 9:21:50 AM

I'm just glad the conservative guy in NY 23 didn't win... Beck and FNC would have been nauseating. For fuck's sake, the guy described Glenn Beck as one of his top mentors.

11/4/2009 9:37:41 AM

i'm not independent - i love it when liberals get pwn

11/4/2009 11:46:03 AM

must be sort of a bittersweet event for you.

because as many stupid things liberals do and say on a regular basis, they don't even BEGIN to hold a candle to the social conservatives and their 100% pure abject retardation.

11/5/2009 4:12:01 AM

Hannity hung up on a guy who mentioned NY-23 yesterday.

"I bet youwon't talk about NY-23 to-click"

11/5/2009 8:26:58 AM