They've guested each other before (or at least, Colbert had O'Reilly on), and O'Reilly's been on the Daily Show a couple times - he always seems more reasonable on Jon's show than on his (Bill's) own show. He's still a bit shouty, but I usually don't see the really awful stuff that I see on his own show.
I can only conclude that, like so many other TV personalities on the hard right, 'Factor O'Reilly' is a character, played a specific way on his show to a specific audience. Like Report Colbert, Factor O'Reilly's views are somewhat more extreme than his real ones (though probably not much more). It's just that he plays them straight to appeal to hard-Right people, rather than deliberately being a buffoon.
Stephen adopts extreme views in a goofy way to satirize the Right. Bill adopts extreme views in a serious way to appeal to the Right.
Watching Colbert lose it is some of the best times watching this show.
There's something I love about things that comedians find funny. I guess there's just this baseline assumption that in time they become inured to such things.
I'm also a fan of the self-deprecating humour route, particularly at Jon's expense. "Jon Stewart looks at kid's junk" and the like.
I wish I had a full list of those clips, but I can't seem to find a common denominator.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
edited December 2014
The stage term for people cracking up is called "corpsing" (possibly because the last thing you want an actor on stage whose character is a dead body to do is laugh). Maybe try looking for that.
If you meant the graphics that make Jon sound like a perv, the tag they use on the site is "questionable graphics".
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
edited December 2014
Jon Stewart Touches Kids
Jon Stewart Jizz-Ams in Front of Children
Jon Stewart Looks at Kids' Things
Uncle Jon Wants to Show You Something
Jon Stewart's Windowless News Van for Kids
Jon Stewart's Story Hole: Remember, it's Our Little Secret!
Jon Stewart Looks at Kids' Junk
Jon Stewart and Anderson Cooper Look at Gaping Holes
Jon Stewart Wraps his Head Around a Miner's Shaft
Come on Jon Stewart
Drop a Load on Jon Stewart
Two Established Television Personalities Penetrate Each Other While People Watch
Jon Stewart Unloads on Anthony Weiner's Chest
Jon Stewart Fucks Himself With His Own Mouth
Jon Stewart Offers Strongmen His Dic-Tip
Jon Stewart Examines Other Men's Boners
Jon Stewart Tries to Figure Out What He's Allowed to Put in His Mouth
Jon Stewart Fingers Some Assholes and Then Gives Them a Vigorous Tongue-Lashing
Jon Stewart Uploads His Stream on Your Facebook
Jon Stewart Delves into Your Briefs
Jon Stewart's Barely Legal
Jon Stewart Pulls Down Your Pants and Touches Your Penis
Jon Stewart Fingers Tax Evaders
Jon Stewart Probes Your Holes
So, this came up from the Colbert Report on my Facebook feed:
"Watch the last episodes of The Colbert Report before they're gone January 12: http://on.cc.com/1IsIXKn
► Something different in late-night is coming to Comedy Central. Tune in to The Nightly Show on January 19."
I guess it was silly to think they would just keep that website up with all the clips and videos forever. But :bigfrown:
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Someone better back up that database and save all those vidyas. It'd be a damned shame to lose all of that.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Someone better back up that database and save all those vidyas. It'd be a damned shame to lose all of that.
I wonder if there will be a movement in Colbert Nation to make a full compilation of episodes.
At least the SuperPAC shenanigans should be preserved for future generations.
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
It's hilarious how stupid this topic can make people. Like, it gets people off the street, helps them get their lives together and gives them a foundation to return to a functional life, for less than what the current system is costing us, but it's like, 'free houses? Fuck the lazy bums!'
Here's the issue. On paper, it sounds like a win for everybody. It helps the homeless get their lives on track, and it saves the government money.
However, if you're of the mindset that homeless or poor people are "takers, moochers, parasites, etc." then you just go "Well so what if it costs 20k per homeless to have them on the streets, and 10k if the government houses them. If they just weren't lazy bums and got a job and bootstraps like my old grandpa taught me about, then it'd cost the government $0!"
The other segment was nice. It hid the not very subtle message behind a veil of.confusion for a good while.
Also, the subject was not sea cows, and I can't help but find the entire notion hilarious. I think it would have been better it it were not sea turtles, but....
Here's the issue. On paper, it sounds like a win for everybody. It helps the homeless get their lives on track, and it saves the government money.
However, if you're of the mindset that homeless or poor people are "takers, moochers, parasites, etc." then you just go "Well so what if it costs 20k per homeless to have them on the streets, and 10k if the government houses them. If they just weren't lazy bums and got a job and bootstraps like my old grandpa taught me about, then it'd cost the government $0!"
Well that's really the whole point, is that if you can show in an absurdly red state like Utah, that doing it this way is more beneficial to everyone; then you can show it anywhere.
Our program is primarily targeted at getting the chronic homeless somewhere to live and then providing services to them in order to get back on track to get a job and then build themselves from there. It doesn't do much for the transient homeless or the sporadic homeless who are in and out of their own housing/jobs, though there's no reason it can't be expanded to the latter, the former is a more difficult problem because of the nature of not really being able to nail down a place for them, though, in general, they have the same sort of crisis and rehabilitation needs as the chronic homeless...they're just 'off the grid' so to speak.
What Utah has found is that the average 'chronic' homeless person in the state cost the state ~$210k a year all things taken into consideration, from shelters, to emergency care, to crisis events and so on. This program reduces those costs to the state to ~$21k a year and since it puts getting help for addictions, mental illness, job training and such issues after having a stable shelter to live in, providing dignity and security, it is a win/win for everyone. I mean, quite literally, no one loses under this program. Even the 'bootstraps' people have nothing to say because this program actually does that, probably better than most any other welfare sort of program, for a fraction of the cost, and little, to none, of the bureaucracy.
It's easy to watch that clip they had on TDS and just from the general overbearing cynicism of the world these days, assume that they were either whitewashing it for some 'feel goods' or not really telling the whole story.
But that's the thing, they were. The program really is that straight forward and simple, and other conservative states are beginning to work on similar programs (Wyoming and Montana, atm, and afaik Colorado already has something similar).
From a personal perspective, I've been getting really increasingly frustrated lately by the complete lack of Christs teachings in not only Christianity, but in my damn religion in my own damn state, even (and to me most egregiously) by my own damn church. So things like this where, sure, from a purely pragmatic view it is just solving problems; but ultimately is the kind of charity we're supposed to have (bootstraps are bullshit), makes me feel a bit better about humanity.
I'm curious how one applies for a "free" apartment. What are the requirements to be considered, like who is considered "sufficiently homeless"? And does the apartment remain free even after they've gotten a job and established a stable life for themselves?
I'm curious how one applies for a "free" apartment. What are the requirements to be considered, like who is considered "sufficiently homeless"? And does the apartment remain free even after they've gotten a job and established a stable life for themselves?
I'm not entirely sure how you 'apply' but I imagine the state just works with local shelters and food banks, along with having information from police and hospital records, and they probably just go from there. I can find information on the program, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of 'application' (for this specific program, there are plenty of other housing assistance programs that are income based in the state, that have applications).
The housing itself isn't income/milestone dependent (though I'm sure they have recourse to remove someone under whatever circumstances), but I'd be surprised if they didn't take a % of your pay, if you cross a certain income threshold. If that specific information is public, I can't find it anywhere. Again, this is permanent housing they're providing, there are other parts of the same program to provide temporary housing for a larger number of people with less critical needs; but for this specific thing, I don't think there is any income dependence or requirement, though again, after a threshold I imagine there's some onus on the person getting the benefit though they aren't going to be kicked out if they start making too much money (I think the idea is that they'll move into their own place if they get stable enough, and that house opens up again; with the fallback of the acknowledgement that could be permanent)
Also, to be clear, at least from my understanding, that 'reduce homelessness by 72%' (or whatever the number was) figure is figuring the chronic homeless rate, not the overall homeless rate, including the aforementioned transient and sporadic homeless population.
But it's something, and I have a hard time thinking of a better way it could be done; a roof over you head and the numerous benefits that provides is so important to so many other rehabilitation programs, that the fact that so many states/governments makes housing dependent on somehow magically getting clean, getting a job, getting help with mental illness, without a stable place to live or regular shelter, is completely absurd.
Posts
Watching Colbert lose it is some of the best times watching this show.
Hard to believe this was 8 years ago.
The best part is still O'Reilly's staff cracking up.
I was also always rather fond of Colbert's Daily Show segment exclusive on the Republican's new "big tent."
Oh ffs.
Let's try that again.
Part one
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
When all else fails, pretend you're going to share their shit on twitter for valid links.
There's something I love about things that comedians find funny. I guess there's just this baseline assumption that in time they become inured to such things.
I'm also a fan of the self-deprecating humour route, particularly at Jon's expense. "Jon Stewart looks at kid's junk" and the like.
I wish I had a full list of those clips, but I can't seem to find a common denominator.
If you meant the graphics that make Jon sound like a perv, the tag they use on the site is "questionable graphics".
The latter: AMAZING. YAY!
Whelp, I know what I'll be doing tonight.
Jon Stewart Jizz-Ams in Front of Children
Jon Stewart Looks at Kids' Things
Uncle Jon Wants to Show You Something
Jon Stewart's Windowless News Van for Kids
Jon Stewart's Story Hole: Remember, it's Our Little Secret!
Jon Stewart Looks at Kids' Junk
Jon Stewart and Anderson Cooper Look at Gaping Holes
Jon Stewart Wraps his Head Around a Miner's Shaft
Come on Jon Stewart
Drop a Load on Jon Stewart
Two Established Television Personalities Penetrate Each Other While People Watch
Jon Stewart Unloads on Anthony Weiner's Chest
Jon Stewart Fucks Himself With His Own Mouth
Jon Stewart Offers Strongmen His Dic-Tip
Jon Stewart Examines Other Men's Boners
Jon Stewart Tries to Figure Out What He's Allowed to Put in His Mouth
Jon Stewart Fingers Some Assholes and Then Gives Them a Vigorous Tongue-Lashing
Jon Stewart Uploads His Stream on Your Facebook
Jon Stewart Delves into Your Briefs
Jon Stewart's Barely Legal
Jon Stewart Pulls Down Your Pants and Touches Your Penis
Jon Stewart Fingers Tax Evaders
Jon Stewart Probes Your Holes
This is easily one of their best running gags.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I'm sad now.
Fucking magnificent.
"Watch the last episodes of The Colbert Report before they're gone January 12: http://on.cc.com/1IsIXKn
► Something different in late-night is coming to Comedy Central. Tune in to The Nightly Show on January 19."
I guess it was silly to think they would just keep that website up with all the clips and videos forever. But :bigfrown:
Wii: 4521 1146 5179 1333 Pearl: 3394 4642 8367 HG: 1849 3913 3132
edit: And since we're dealing with Viacom here, it will also get taken down from YouTube or other places as soon as it is uploaded.
How much ya gonna give me? :V
e: No idea why this works, really. It's a password protected video, but it works from the channel page. Bravo, vimeo.
At least the SuperPAC shenanigans should be preserved for future generations.
glad to have it, but god damn that is a poor quality, choppy as hell video.
Props to Utah.
However, if you're of the mindset that homeless or poor people are "takers, moochers, parasites, etc." then you just go "Well so what if it costs 20k per homeless to have them on the streets, and 10k if the government houses them. If they just weren't lazy bums and got a job and bootstraps like my old grandpa taught me about, then it'd cost the government $0!"
Also, the subject was not sea cows, and I can't help but find the entire notion hilarious. I think it would have been better it it were not sea turtles, but....
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Well that's really the whole point, is that if you can show in an absurdly red state like Utah, that doing it this way is more beneficial to everyone; then you can show it anywhere.
Our program is primarily targeted at getting the chronic homeless somewhere to live and then providing services to them in order to get back on track to get a job and then build themselves from there. It doesn't do much for the transient homeless or the sporadic homeless who are in and out of their own housing/jobs, though there's no reason it can't be expanded to the latter, the former is a more difficult problem because of the nature of not really being able to nail down a place for them, though, in general, they have the same sort of crisis and rehabilitation needs as the chronic homeless...they're just 'off the grid' so to speak.
What Utah has found is that the average 'chronic' homeless person in the state cost the state ~$210k a year all things taken into consideration, from shelters, to emergency care, to crisis events and so on. This program reduces those costs to the state to ~$21k a year and since it puts getting help for addictions, mental illness, job training and such issues after having a stable shelter to live in, providing dignity and security, it is a win/win for everyone. I mean, quite literally, no one loses under this program. Even the 'bootstraps' people have nothing to say because this program actually does that, probably better than most any other welfare sort of program, for a fraction of the cost, and little, to none, of the bureaucracy.
It's easy to watch that clip they had on TDS and just from the general overbearing cynicism of the world these days, assume that they were either whitewashing it for some 'feel goods' or not really telling the whole story.
But that's the thing, they were. The program really is that straight forward and simple, and other conservative states are beginning to work on similar programs (Wyoming and Montana, atm, and afaik Colorado already has something similar).
From a personal perspective, I've been getting really increasingly frustrated lately by the complete lack of Christs teachings in not only Christianity, but in my damn religion in my own damn state, even (and to me most egregiously) by my own damn church. So things like this where, sure, from a purely pragmatic view it is just solving problems; but ultimately is the kind of charity we're supposed to have (bootstraps are bullshit), makes me feel a bit better about humanity.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Poor John Oliver and his lego man haircut.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm not entirely sure how you 'apply' but I imagine the state just works with local shelters and food banks, along with having information from police and hospital records, and they probably just go from there. I can find information on the program, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of 'application' (for this specific program, there are plenty of other housing assistance programs that are income based in the state, that have applications).
The housing itself isn't income/milestone dependent (though I'm sure they have recourse to remove someone under whatever circumstances), but I'd be surprised if they didn't take a % of your pay, if you cross a certain income threshold. If that specific information is public, I can't find it anywhere. Again, this is permanent housing they're providing, there are other parts of the same program to provide temporary housing for a larger number of people with less critical needs; but for this specific thing, I don't think there is any income dependence or requirement, though again, after a threshold I imagine there's some onus on the person getting the benefit though they aren't going to be kicked out if they start making too much money (I think the idea is that they'll move into their own place if they get stable enough, and that house opens up again; with the fallback of the acknowledgement that could be permanent)
Also, to be clear, at least from my understanding, that 'reduce homelessness by 72%' (or whatever the number was) figure is figuring the chronic homeless rate, not the overall homeless rate, including the aforementioned transient and sporadic homeless population.
But it's something, and I have a hard time thinking of a better way it could be done; a roof over you head and the numerous benefits that provides is so important to so many other rehabilitation programs, that the fact that so many states/governments makes housing dependent on somehow magically getting clean, getting a job, getting help with mental illness, without a stable place to live or regular shelter, is completely absurd.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Those shoes are strikingly brown.
So hype!
I hope he gets Eugene Mirman as his co host.
That would be cool, but Chuck Nice would be even cooler.