Hal 9000

Really? C'mon!

I don't know that they did...and neither do you! I will assess the situation (as many people will) in about a year or so.

All the posts have been on topic. We're talking about people who are playing roles...as provocateurs. All those points you made in the very first post could apply to any number of people in cable news and internet sites (right or left). That's what I'm pointing out, unless you think that righties are the only provocateurs and if that's the case - you're really out there.

More like...what happens when they let the rats take over.

This could be a good thing that Canada can learn from.

No, I don't find it funny because...well, it's just not funny. The above clip is funny, but "more people protest Trump than cancer" - not funny, angry. Trump is "Putin's cock holster"? Is that funny? Does that really deserve a laugh? If I heard a comedian (as I said above) make a joke about Hillary being Putin's cum bucket or something, that would not be funny either. I've got no issue with a comedian showing the lighter side of politics such as the above clip (which could've been made using Hillary or Obama or any other politician) , but we're way beyond that now. SNL stopped being funny years ago, around the time they decided that they could have a real affect on politics. The SNL clips make CNN and MSNBC news, not because they're rip-roaringly funny, it's because CNN and MSNBC can do a hit piece with no accountability. Open your eyes, stop being manipulated, these people aren't trying to be funny, it's sheer anger and vindictiveness. Just because you have a comedian card, doesn't make you funny and it doesn't (or shouldn't) make lashing out in anger any more acceptable.

I guess you just have to ask yourself whether these "comedians" do what they do to be funny or to make a political comment regardless of whether the joke works or not. DL Hughly is apparently a comedian, although every time I see him he seems quite angry, same with John Stewart and Rosie O'Donnell. Even Al Franken is considered a comedian. Do you think Alec Baldwin (or Tina Fey in '08) shows up on SNL every week because he's funny? Or, is it because he wants to make a political statement? For you, having comedian status is an "I can be a complete asshole without repercussion" card, for me, I'm smart enough to realize that it's now politics before comedy. The comments these people make are not intended for humour and they're not funny, they are simply angry rants...and the only reason that it's acceptable is because their viewers are just as angry. BTW - The clip that Omni posted is pretty good. Of course, that was recorded before the election and shows me just how far the leftist "comedians" have sunk in the last few months.

At the beginning of the conversation, I said it didn't matter whether comments were tasteful or not, you proceeded to ask for a drawn line, then you disagree based on whether a person is considered a comedian or not. You may call it political humour all you want, but something tells me that if Van Jones or Don Lemon said the same thing, you'd be just fine with those comments. I'm not excusing Alex Jones, I think I suggested as much a couple posts ago, what I'm saying is that these people are provocateurs - all of them. I don't separate a comment from Colbert from that of Maddow or Hannity from Dennis Miller (if you want to go that side). Those "Jokes" and those found in SNL aren't made to be funny, they're angry political comments - no different from the pundits on FOX or MSNBC, just a different audience.

This is where the lines get blurred for the weaker minded people. If you don't think that was more political than humor - I don't know what to tell you. However, do you think we'd have the same view if Hillary was president and a "comedian" called her "Putin's sloppy cum sack"? No, that person would never work another day in front of a camera - you can bet on that. Maybe Jones should install a laugh track on his program - then all's good right?

Are you kidding? You view Colbert as simply making a homophobic joke? WoW!

I'm actually not aware of the scenario that you're referring, but yes, I would consider that over the line. Also, I would say, that referring to your president as Putin's cock holster is way over the line too. What people don't understand is that the left have now made it OK to act out this way toward the president. The media can't go back now, they can only ramp things up. As Meryl Streep said "it gives permission". P.S - I asume "cock" is now allowed in our vernacular. This is one of my favourite scenes from Scarface - It says quite a bit about where we're at with Trump Tony Montana: What you lookin’ at? You all a bunch of fu**in’ assholes. You know why? You don’t have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fu**in’ fingers and say, “That’s the bad guy.” So… what that make you? Good? You’re not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don’t have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There’s a bad guy comin’ through! Better get outta his way!

I'm not suggesting whether it's tasteful or not, it's not the question at hand. Dragging out pseudo psychologists to spew that Trump is crazy or what Colbert did is questionable as well. What about Madonna or Ashley Judd? This where the separation of news and entertainment gets blurred. Believing that someone is good or nice just because they seem like that on TV (see Johnny Carson) is just as bad as believing someone is horrible because of the persona they portray on TV. Some people buy into it - some don't. ...And, anyone who believes it happens only from one side are the ones buying into it.

It's his job to be a provocateur, just as it is with pro wrestling, Howard Stern, or an NHL agitator. Some people are paid for the persona they create. You can't tell me that Rowdy Roddy Piper was hitting people with coconuts in real life anymore than Ron McLean can convince me that Alex Burrows was a bad person because he taunts goaltenders. The crap and falsehoods in any Howard Stern interview should be evidence enough. It's all in the entertainment - the Andy Kaufman effect. The problem is; too many people believe this stuff - people on both sides. This is why some of the smarter people in the world don't care too much about what Trump says on Howard Stern or while posturing for Billy Bush in that 2005 recording. The problem arises when the left don't see that Ann Coulter is doing it, and when the right doesn't see when Lawrence O'Donnell, Maddow or Lemon (and his posse) does it.

A jury of their peers - of course!

So, would 10 years for strangling 3 people including your own sister be enough punishment? Actually, that was a rhetorical question, anything less than the death penalty for Karla Homalka is a travesty. Same goes these POS's that are being executed in the USA. There is nothing wrong with making the decision (based on 100% certainty) that a person has overstayed their time on earth.

They don't always get 25 years. Karla Homalka got less than 10 for killing 3 young girls, did she get punished enough?

Why would we want to rehabilitate a murderer and put them back into the public? They're murderers! What ever happened to punishment for your crimes? Am I still allowed to say punishment or does that make me a fascist hate monger?

I admit that I haven't read every post in the thread, but as far as Arkansas (or any other state) executing people goes....I couldn't give a FK. I know that DNA has found some people on death row to actually be innocent, but using DNA going forward, we can now be more sure than ever of someone's guilt. I say ramp up the executions.

Going ahead and doing what exactly?

What exactly would environmentalists do? Wear work socks with their Birkenstocks, grow a bigger man bun? Smoke some dope and complain about the government? Stop driving their old beat up Vans? Grow up dude, there is nothing that environmentalists do that is any more environmentally conscious than any one else. OH, they'd drive an electric car if the prices came down, bullsheet, they drive whatever gets them there and if they can afford a big SUV, then that's what they drive. They feign outrage when necessary, then proceed to destroy the environment at the same rate as anyone/everyone else.

There are no actual honest studies. There is no data that can accurately studied, because it's all been compromised. Now, wether you believe in global warming or not makes no difference because nothing can be done to correct it - except hope that it's natural and self corrects. You can be outraged and wring your hands and tell yourself you're a good person for doing so, but the fact is; nothing will be done by humans to reverse anything. BTW - If global warming is man made, wouldn't science be the main suspects...and hasn't science created nearly every weapon of mass destruction from the 19th century onward?

Even the 3% is a faulty stat.

Another successful socialism story.

Liking or disliking any particular organized religion has nothing to do with the idea of whether there is a god or not.