Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes

"The Daily Show": Week of 3/16/15

trow125

Recommended Posts

trow125

trow125

3/16: Andrew Cockburn (author – promoting book “Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins”)
3/17: Amanda Seyfried (actress – promoting movie “While We’re Young”)
3/18: Kevin Hart (actor – promoting movie “Get Hard”)
3/19: Will Ferrell (actor – promoting movie “Get Hard”)

  • Love 1
Link to comment
bmoore4026

bmoore4026

As someone who is gay, hearing what some states are doing just to deny the rights of gay Americans pisses me off and depresses me to the point that I wonder why I watch The Daily Show and go on gay news sites.

 

And for all of Jon's cheeky "Sharia Law" quip, it's going to be lost on the Oklahoman lawmakers.  I feel sorry for the people of Oklahoma being represented by these bigots and someone like Sally Kern.

 

And that thing about "denying bathroom access based on ones chromosomes" takes the cake.  How are they going to do that?  Get the Sentinels from The X-Men franchise, reprogram them to scan for XY-chromosomes rather than for mutant ones, and stick 'em outside every restroom in Texas?  Someone needs smacking, they really do!

  • Love 7
Link to comment
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

Fuck these so-called Christians who want to deny people simple basic rights and dignity just because they were born gay. These assholes are a huge threat to society in this part of the world than any Islamic jihadist they claim are coming to get us.

 

Someone should frisk Ted Cruz for matches and/or a lighter.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

(edited)

I just can't with these equal-marriage bans. It's really shameful. As is the business about needing the right chromosomes to use the correct bathroom. Oklahomophobia, indeed. Good grief.

Edited by dubbel zout
  • Love 2
Link to comment
attica

attica

I enjoyed Jessica's report, mostly because her 'magic cone' reminded me of a real-life emergency-lady-peeing product delightfully named Go Girl. But seriously: Ally McBeal (which was a popular program, as I recall) and her firm's unisex bathroom was almost 20 years ago, and people are still afraid of restrooms? Gah.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
gesundheit

gesundheit

 I'm looking forward to Andrew Cockburn (he's Olivia Wilde's dad!).

Hold on, seriously??? Olivia Wilde is Cockburn's daughter? How did I miss this completely?

 

This chromosome thing is ridiculous. So a post-op trans woman who actually has a vag would have to go use a urinal. Sounds REAL practical.

 

What is this weird paranoia? If men so badly wanted to be in ladies' rooms to perv it up, some obtuse law isn't going to stop them. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

Please don't show us endless pictures of bright scary food on an empty stomach Jon. I could definitely eat some of those right now.

 

Dumbassery and Fuckery. Just describe the Democrats and Republicans in a simple matter Jon. The battle between Dumb and Evil.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
iMonrey

iMonrey

Since gay marriage bans are being struck down as unconstitutional, I would guess eventually these other laws will be struck down for the same reasons. But I'm not really sure anything needs to be done about businesses who don't want to service gay weddings, like florists and bakers. In the first place, doesn't a private business have the right to refuse service? I mean, it's stupid of them to turn down money, but that's their right if they want it. In the second place, why would you want to use a business that discriminates against you? Give someone else your money.

Link to comment
possibilities

possibilities

(edited)

Remember the lunch counter sit ins? Boycotting a business that discriminates only works when a large population does it and there are ample alternative elsewheres to access whatever they offer. When the majority discriminates, the majority holds the control and it amounts to exclusion. Basically all anti-discrimination laws serve to protect the minority. I would rather work for a company that pays and values women equally, or live in an apartment building with non-discriminatory management, or shop at a place that values all its customers. But "boycotting" those who discriminate in this way would wipe out most options. With a retail establishment, you can't just let them refuse to serve an entire class of people. Restaurants, florists, doctors, employers, landlords... they can't be allowed to restrict access to society based on demographic prejudices. It's not the same as refusing service to someone who is barefoot and shirtless, is disruptive, or has a history of not paying their bill. We need laws that protect classes of people against systematically being excluded or exploited or otherwise disadvantaged due to prejudice.

Edited by possibilities
  • Love 5
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

When one gets a license to operate a business, then there's anti discrimination laws that they must follow. PBS news covered this pretty well with the CO case. The owner was hiding behind 'deep seeded religious beliefs' and was arguing these should trump civil law, which, no, not in this country. In the piece, it was so obviously BS. Even if one can just go to another baker; I'd rather sue if I could just to make others aware what a dbag these types of people are. So yeah, I went to another baker, and now this one has to serve gay people too, but maybe business goes down anyway because people are so over this bs. 

 

So, 'private business' is kind of a misnomer. A private club is different, for example, like Augusta golf club. They didn't allow women members until recently, and weren't required to. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
FartyPants

FartyPants

Interesting, so if I don't need a license for my business, can I discriminate without worrying about law? I did not explicitly agree to any non-descrimination. So I can discriminate at my lemonade stand?

Link to comment
Bastet

Bastet

(edited)

Since gay marriage bans are being struck down as unconstitutional, I would guess eventually these other laws will be struck down for the same reasons.

 

They should be, yes.  But the Roberts Court has been using a bullshit reading of the First Amendment's religion clause as a discrimination loophole lately.  So will they be?  I don't know. 

Edited by Bastet
Link to comment
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

Aaron Schock? Fuck that guy! I'm sure that's what his father would really like to say.

 

It's quite sad to see that disruptive turd Benjamin Netanyahu get re-elected, especially the manner in which he pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. What's more is that Republicans will claim vindication for inviting Netanyahu to address Congress as a big "fuck you!" to Obama and, along with Tom Cotton's letter to Iran, will be emboldened to do more rat fuckery on the president's foreign policy direction.

 

I quite enjoyed the interview with Kevin Hart. Quite some interesting stuff he talked about. It'll only go downhill tomorrow when Will Ferrell shows up to make an annoying ass of himself. What kind of shitty prop will he drag on stage as he's interoduced?

  • Love 2
Link to comment
dusang

dusang

(edited)

Since gay marriage bans are being struck down as unconstitutional, I would guess eventually these other laws will be struck down for the same reasons. But I'm not really sure anything needs to be done about businesses who don't want to service gay weddings, like florists and bakers. In the first place, doesn't a private business have the right to refuse service? I mean, it's stupid of them to turn down money, but that's their right if they want it. In the second place, why would you want to use a business that discriminates against you? Give someone else your money.

 

 

Interesting, so if I don't need a license for my business, can I discriminate without worrying about law? I did not explicitly agree to any non-descrimination. So I can discriminate at my lemonade stand?

 

I don't know about the U.S. but in Canada it was once described to me as you can discriminate against (refuse service to) people for any number of reasons (hair colour, smell, logo-ed clothing, piercings, etc.) but there are certain and specific forms of discrimination that are prohibited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- religion, race, gender, sexual identity, etc.  So under any circumstances, at any time, anywhere, those forms of discrimination are illegal.  Then there comes the interpretation of which rights trump which -- if your religious expression is to be racist, does that trump the law preventing racial discrimination? (By precedent, probably not.)

Edited by dusang
Link to comment
marceline

marceline

Since gay marriage bans are being struck down as unconstitutional, I would guess eventually these other laws will be struck down for the same reasons. But I'm not really sure anything needs to be done about businesses who don't want to service gay weddings, like florists and bakers. In the first place, doesn't a private business have the right to refuse service? I mean, it's stupid of them to turn down money, but that's their right if they want it. In the second place, why would you want to use a business that discriminates against you? Give someone else your money.

 

I feel the same way in general but as others have noted, that only works when you have someplace else to take your money. I personally wouldn't sue these businesses but I think it's important to make sure these decisions have negative consequences.

 

The good thing about the modern world is that thanks to social media you can cause a lot of trouble for bigoted businesses in ways that don't require you to get a lawyer. Look how many times some business tries to do something stupid like this or the business that wanted to give a discount to people for praying or the St. Louis sports bar that said it would no longer show Rams games because of the players that walked on the field with their hands up. These businesses take these ridiculously theatrical "moral" stands then get surprised when it ends up costing them. Anyway...

 

I found Jon's conversation with Kevin Hart to be really enjoyable. Hart reminds me of Robin Williams in that he seems completely unafraid to share his personal struggles. I'm going to have to give his stand up specials a look.

Link to comment
iMonrey

iMonrey

 I guess part of the problem is they keep using "the bakery that refuses to bake a gay wedding cake" as an example of a business that might discriminate. And that's actually a fairly bad example, because a bakery could refuse to bake any number of cakes for any number of reasons. Hell there are probably some bakeries that don't do wedding cakes, period. Or cakes at all. There's no logical reason to sue them because they won't make you the cake you want. Personally, I'd be afraid of what they'd put in it if they initially wanted to refuse the request.

 

A better example would be a hotel who refused a room to a same-sex couple, or a cruise ship, or a rental apartment, or something like that. Even the florist is a better example than the bakery.

Link to comment
possibilities

possibilities

(edited)

dusang, it's the same in the USA: you can make decisions on any random basis you want, except for discriminating against a protected class. So, you could decide you don't rent to people who have waterbeds, or people with tattoos, or anyone who owns a purple tuxedo. Or you won't hire anyone who sings in a barber shop quartet, or who dyes their hair blue, or who drives a hatchback car. But if the law says no discrimination on the basis of race, then that means no discrimination on the basis of race. Period.

 

If the bakery doesn't make cakes for anyone, ok. But what bakery doesn't make cakes? A "gay wedding cake" is just a cake being served at a gay wedding. If they refuse to make the cake on the basis that it's for a same sex couple, that's discrimination. Presumably, any couple buying a wedding cake is trying to buy it from a bakery that  makes cakes. It's not hard to test whether the cake they are asking for is outside the bounds of cakes typically made there. You do the same thing people do when testing things like discrimination in renting: send another couple in, asking for an equivalent cake. If the bakery refuses het couples the same cake, then maybe it's not discrimination against same sex couples. But otherwise, it is. And in many cases, the bakery (or whoever) will openly say they refuse based on "we don't serve people like you" so you don't even need to do a test. I agree, I'd be afraid of what they'd put in the cake, as sabotage, if forced. But I would still like to hold them accountable for being bigots, and I'd still like discrimination to be illegal. For the wedding, I'd get my cake somewhere friendly if I could. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to publicize their attitude and get them fined, or whatever the penalty is (shut them down? force them to change their policy).

Edited by possibilities
  • Love 6
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

Not even fined. Just awareness. "Hey, do you want this business in your community?" Some people might not know. Then, they can say, 'hey, don't get your cake there, do you know they discriminate?'

 

I find the whole thing ridiculous in a way. Because money ain't gay. I guess you're possibly making enough money that the potential profit isn't that much, but isn't part of being a business owner exposure to new markets?

Link to comment
Wax Lion

Wax Lion

 

I guess part of the problem is they keep using "the bakery that refuses to bake a gay wedding cake" as an example of a business that might discriminate. And that's actually a fairly bad example, because a bakery could refuse to bake any number of cakes for any number of reasons. Hell there are probably some bakeries that don't do wedding cakes, period. Or cakes at all.

 

Most of those are just fine as excuses. But what we're talking about is someone saying "Wait, you're a gay couple? We can't serve you." If they said "We only bake croissants and cookies" or "We don't bake wedding cakes." or "We've got all the orders we can handle that day" they might have not had trouble (providing that the story holds up, you can't claim to be busy and take a job for that same day).

 

Anti-discrimination cases are specifically about refusing to serve certain kinds of people and in the cases of bakeries and wedding photographers refusing to serve gay couples they're directly telling people "We don't serve your kind here."  Usually, it's more complicated like proving that someone has a history of making excuses that don't hold up but these cases people are flat out telling gay couples that they won't serve them because they're gay.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ruby24

ruby24

It's going to be sad when there's nobody left to call Fox News on their bullshit the way Jon does. They're just going to run rampant with no pushback, and that's going to suck.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

I would hope they do. Because Fox News truly sets themselves up for this kind of warranted criticism (at least the assholes Jon displays).

 

At least Will Ferrell was tolerable in that interview. Now we know why they had him on and Kevin Hart the night before. What was left on the cutting room floor.

Link to comment
LADreamr

LADreamr

(edited)

Awwww! Amanda Seyfried I can take or leave, but Finn needs his own show!

Her comment to him, "I've never seen you in slow motion before!" was funny, though.

Edited by LADreamr
  • Love 3
Link to comment
fastiller

fastiller

I found Jon's conversation with Kevin Hart to be really enjoyable. Hart reminds me of Robin Williams in that he seems completely unafraid to share his personal struggles. I'm going to have to give his stand up specials a look.

I have yet to watch the Kevin Hart interview, but I wanted to 100 % recommend his stand-up specials.  Everytime I've seen him (stand-up or on Real Husbands) I'm left feeling that my life would be infinitely better if I had a Kevin Hart of my very own.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
peeayebee

peeayebee

Why was Will Ferrell in a Zach Galinifanakis shirt?

I thought I saw Barry Gibb on it, so I assumed it had various singers on it. Anyway, it seems like Ferrell always, or almost always, comes on talk shows dressed differently or doing some schtick right off the bat. I didn't mind, although I didn't get Jon comments about the song Happy…. Ohhh, it was confusing Pharrell with Ferrell. Duh. Got it.

Link to comment
LADreamr

LADreamr

Funny thing with the first segment last night, while he was going off on FOX, I was thinking that I love how much Jon has been dropping the mic since he announced he was leaving, and then he actually pulled out a mic and dropped it. I'm going to miss him so much.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

(edited)

I almost wonder why they bother to call out Fox News. They (FN) have a clear, directed agenda and are pretty good at staying on message. It's not like I was "wow, they don't even know how hypocritical they are." The TDS demo knows well enough and doesn't think FN is a legit news outlet anyway. 

 

I mean, it's not like you couldn't do a segment every night. 

Edited by ganesh
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Wax Lion

Wax Lion

I would guess a lot of Daily Show viewers know someone, even possibly someone whose Facebook feed they're stuck following, who takes the bullshit from Fox News seriously and it's cathartic to hear them mocked in a way that lays out the inconsistencies in what they say. It's probably even better when the good stuff gets turned into gifs they can share.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Bastet

Bastet

Yeah, no matter how much it's like shooting fish in a barrel, exposing the fuckery that forms the basis of Fox News never fails to entertain me.  If it was some little outfit that only a handful of people took seriously, I wouldn't think it important to keep pointing out what lying, hypocritical, vitriolic parasites fill its airwaves.  But, given the size of its audience - and the large percentage of that who regard it as factual journalism rather than unhinged commentary - Fox News is just plain dangerous.  Something like TDS' sustained coverage of its lunacy isn't going to stop Murdoch and his minions, or cause many of their viewers to wake up and smell reality.  But it's still a public service.  And can be quite cathartic.  Not to mention funny as hell.

 

Shifting gears, I really like Trevor Noah's comedy and welcome him as an addition to the show, but I thought the chess segment was just so-so.

  • Love 8
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

It's just mocking. It's not like their ever going to be called to task for what they're doing. I guess that's my point. I watch these segments all the time, and I'm not surprised at what they're saying, but it seems like it's going to be like 30 years from now until these people finally get what they deserve.

Link to comment
Jediknight

Jediknight

(edited)

Better than Adam Sandler, I guess

Adam Sandler made Hotel Transylvania though.  So he's made a good movie this decade.

 

And I don't know what Jon was talking about with systemic racism.  Hasn't he been paying attention to Fox?  Racism is dead.

Edited by Jediknight
Link to comment
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

(edited)
It's not like their ever going to be called to task for what they're doing.

 

Maybe not in the U.S., where the First Amendment affords the network a lot of protection, but Fox News did apologize a few months ago for reporting that there are areas in some European countries that are not under state control and are ruled according to Sharia law.

Edited by dubbel zout
Link to comment
Bastet

Bastet

I just saw Tuesday's show, and the "Hate-Watching on C-Span 2" segment cracked me up.  When it started, I was ready to pitch a fit if Jon was going to fault Democrats for holding up the bill; given the reason they're doing it, damn right hold that thing hostage.  But I once I realized he was going to support their reasoning, just mock their "we didn't read it, and the Republicans lied to us about what was in it" negligence, I settled in for a lovely ride.  Him climbing over the desk, and then resigning from the show after 6-1/2 minutes because Hate-Watch viewers don't deserve a host who is even slightly nauseated ... I'm going to miss this man so much.

 

I also loved the reenactment of a Civil War book panel, the racist caller, the camera trained on an empty podium, etc.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

Maybe not in the U.S., where the First Amendment affords the network a lot of protection, but Fox News did apologize a few months ago for reporting that there are areas in some European countries that are not under state control and are ruled according to Sharia law.

 

That's fair, but I'm thinking more along the lines of always pounding the war drum or screaming about Benghazi. There was a government issued report from a republican led committee that concluded there's nothing there. How fast will they mention Benghazi when Clinton finally announces? You can't measure it with light speed. 

 

It's the ignoring of reality more than the being factually incorrect. I guess it's important to keep pointing out how awful they are, but it's not like they'll be publicly discredited. 

Link to comment
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...