In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 17 2016 19:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Oliver isn't a patch on Colbert.
Oliver goes much deeper into the issues he talks about that Colbert.
Also, i personally find Colbert's eternally self satisfied attitude a bit annoying. He has balls of steel and is a good comedian but i much prefer Oliver self depreciating style (maybe 6 years in London helped to appreciate English humour).
On October 17 2016 15:03 oBlade wrote: this means a Republican who isn't a total clown like Ted Cruz or Mike Pence
I think it's not too early to start placing bets on the 2020 election.
Don't forget the 2020 election will have Lindsay Lohan and Kanye West running for the head of state!
Maybe sooner because I can't picture a world where either Trump or Clinton manage to go the full term without getting impeached,arrested or overthrown.
In Clintons case I cannot see her lasting a four year term health wise. No stamina and some serious question marks over the seizures, collapses, eye twitching etc Trump may have an issue there too with all the junk food he eats.
Now, that's ridiculous.
She's been travelling millions of miles as SoS and as been campaining non stop for a year, and she's taken a total of three days to recover from a fucking pneumonia, she's stood tough like a nail for 8 hours straight in the Benghazi hearing and she lacks stamina??
Look we get you don't like her, but simply repeating Trump's bs is not convincing.
And we have avoided talking about the clearly frail mental sanity of Trump, because even if it really looks like he is not quite right in his mind and has some narcissistic serious disorder, truth is we have no idea.
she had to cough for about 10 seconds during an 8hour Benghazi hearing as could be seen in a video that was posted by someone else in here recently! Clearly her health going south and not something else... like having to talk for 8 hours
On October 17 2016 19:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:57 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:09 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
I can agree with all of that.
I think one has to distinguish him from people like Maher (to whom he was compared before) who brings very little facts on the table. What i like about oliver is the depth at which he goes into certain topics while staying very accessible, and that i always end up having learnt a great deal.
I didn't say anything about how they present information. I just compared him to Maher for his smugness.
British humour, not for everyone.
I'm also quite sure you are uncomfortable with the content of what he says, and that probably don't help you to like him.
Nothing he says makes me uncomfortable I just don't find him funny, entertaining, or fair. Some of the content his writers put out is interesting but that's nothing to credit him for.
On October 17 2016 19:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 19:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On October 17 2016 19:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:57 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:09 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
I can agree with all of that.
I think one has to distinguish him from people like Maher (to whom he was compared before) who brings very little facts on the table. What i like about oliver is the depth at which he goes into certain topics while staying very accessible, and that i always end up having learnt a great deal.
I didn't say anything about how they present information. I just compared him to Maher for his smugness.
British humour, not for everyone.
I'm also quite sure you are uncomfortable with the content of what he says, and that probably don't help you to like him.
Nothing he says makes me uncomfortable I just don't find him funny, entertaining, or fair. Some of the content his writers put out is interesting but that's nothing to credit him for.
Given that Oliver writes and produces the show in addition to hosting it, I'm not sure that makes any sense.
He deserves some credit. It isn’t like the writers come up with this stuff completely independent of the host. The Daily Show’s writers worked closely with the on stage talent. Also he did stand up for like 8 years before landing on the Daily Show.
And I don't think comedy is supposed to be fair. He isn’t really interested in the whole “both sides” dynamic.
On October 17 2016 19:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 19:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On October 17 2016 19:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:57 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:09 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
I can agree with all of that.
I think one has to distinguish him from people like Maher (to whom he was compared before) who brings very little facts on the table. What i like about oliver is the depth at which he goes into certain topics while staying very accessible, and that i always end up having learnt a great deal.
I didn't say anything about how they present information. I just compared him to Maher for his smugness.
British humour, not for everyone.
I'm also quite sure you are uncomfortable with the content of what he says, and that probably don't help you to like him.
Nothing he says makes me uncomfortable I just don't find him funny, entertaining, or fair. Some of the content his writers put out is interesting but that's nothing to credit him for.
Given that Oliver writes and produces the show in addition to hosting it, I'm not sure that makes any sense.
I wasn't aware he wrote his own content. In that case he's to be credited for it then.
I love how wikileaks fans make it seem it is just the Democratic party trying to stop wikileaks. Like Republicans and most other nations don’t know it is only a matter of time before Assange or his sponsors decide who is the next target.
On October 17 2016 19:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 19:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On October 17 2016 19:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:57 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:09 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
I can agree with all of that.
I think one has to distinguish him from people like Maher (to whom he was compared before) who brings very little facts on the table. What i like about oliver is the depth at which he goes into certain topics while staying very accessible, and that i always end up having learnt a great deal.
I didn't say anything about how they present information. I just compared him to Maher for his smugness.
British humour, not for everyone.
I'm also quite sure you are uncomfortable with the content of what he says, and that probably don't help you to like him.
Nothing he says makes me uncomfortable I just don't find him funny, entertaining, or fair. Some of the content his writers put out is interesting but that's nothing to credit him for.
Given that Oliver writes and produces the show in addition to hosting it, I'm not sure that makes any sense.
I wasn't aware he wrote his own content. In that case he's to be credited for it then.
Personally, I dislike infotainment like Oliver's, but I definitely think he exposes public issues that are otherwise difficult for the general population to engage with, predatory lending and 501(c)(3) exemptions being two good examples
On October 17 2016 21:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Trump should offer clemency to Assange if he wins the election at the debates. That'd be epic.
Some wise words from Podesta over Clintons private email server scandal and Clintons character faults.
And then she did exactly that at the debates. Wow, what a scandal!
I guess it's hard to explain your way out of deleting 33,000 emails after a subpoena has been issued. It damaged her to deny wrongdoing for so long and thats what he is saying in the email.
It is the weirdest thing watching people post stuff as if it is a scandal. It's also weird how people have been posting in this thread about something that will sink Clinton. Then it's never anything note worthy. Next time wikileaks makes a claim? They are hyped and totally convinced again. Many iterations later, they continue to have faith.
It is easy, they were personal emails or lost. Remember that Bush lost 22 million emails while in the White House and we have yet to see the GOP look into that issue and why it happened.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu44ys9WcAA9t_K.jpg)
EPT
