Comedy and Everything Else

[bridgetosolace]

I love this show to death, but good lord does it need a smart, dissenting voice when they talk about politics.

Not that I don't agree with what they say, but Jimmy's arguing against ghosts and there ends up not being much of a discussion. It's easy to argue against someone who isn't there to defend themselves, I suppose.

Doesn't stop me from eagerly awaiting the show each week, though.

[scamboogah]

If I wanted to listen to right wing idiots defend indefensible positions, I'd switch on one of the 50 news networks. I don't see how it would benefit C&EE at all for them to bring in someone just to be a mouthpiece for the right.

If you disagree with what Jimmy is saying, why would you need Bill Kristol or Elisabeth Hasselbeck there to say so? People like Glenn Beck and Sanjay Gupta don't deserve the courtesy of having someone 'defend their side' because they're liars, and why would Jimmy, Stef and Todd want to further cloud these issues with more of the same bullshit that's already in the clips they play?

[bridgetosolace]

If I wanted to listen to right wing idiots defend indefensible positions, I'd switch on one of the 50 news networks. I don't see how it would benefit C&EE at all for them to bring in someone just to be a mouthpiece for the right.

If you disagree with what Jimmy is saying, why would you need Bill Kristol or Elisabeth Hasselbeck there to say so? People like Glenn Beck and Sanjay Gupta don't deserve the courtesy of having someone 'defend their side' because they're liars, and why would Jimmy, Stef and Todd want to further cloud these issues with more of the same bullshit that's already in the clips they play?

Either you didn't read what I said well or I wasn't able to convey the subtext as well I wanted to.

I said smart, dissenting voice. Not conservative. Not Glenn Beck. I have no idea how you jumped from "someone who disagrees with them" to "mouthpiece for the right." Just to pull a name out of my ass, it would be interesting see someone like George Will on the show. My exposure to him is admittedly limited, but what I have heard from him is level headed. He's doesn't care for the war on terror or the war in Iraq, he's just someone who's extremely well educated and fiscally conservative. Smart conservatism (not what the republican party has turned it in to) certainly is defensible.

They had Paul Goebel on for a reason. It didn't quite work out how they had hoped, but discussion between two intelligent people who disagree with each other is interesting.

For example, instead of talking about how it's horrible and ignorant to disallowed gay marriage, the dissenting voice is asking "Why does the government have anything to do with marriage to begin with? Why are there tax cuts and government related issues entangled with a socially religious institution?"

The only thing I can think of that I disagreed with gang on is persecuting the people who carried out torture (Jon Stewart said the same thing as well). It's not an issue of me disagreeing with what I'm hearing, but I think the show would be benefit from a dissenting voice.

Not only is it more engaging to hear a discussion about topics rather than what is effectively a mental circle jerk of like-minds, but it helps to strengthen and flesh out the argument that Jimmy/Steff/Todd is making when he's not just disagreeing with arguments that he heard somewhere.

Todd said on a podcast (I think NNF season 1, maybe 3) that when someone jumps to think of a reason to hit their kids, even if Todd can't think of what to do in a certain situation (the child keeps running out into the street, for example), a child psychologist or someone else trained in the area of child rearing would know what to do.

Thinking along the same lines, of course the people on the news who Jimmy are responding to are retarded. They don't have a comback to what Jimmy is saying. But lets see how someone who's educated and intelligent reponds. I'm not saying that Jimmy will lose, but it's certainly something worth listening to.

Of course, you'd have to find someone who can do that and is also funny.

I do love the show, though, and I will continue to listen faithfully regardless of what the do/don't do to the format or guests.

And sorry for the essay, by the way.

[scamboogah]

I see what you're saying, but at the same time don't really think George Will would be a good addition to the show. I think the dynamic between him and Todd would be uncomfortable, to say the least.

[bridgetosolace]

Mmmm...two sentences and then 6 paragraphs to defend myself. Jebus.

George Will's dry british-y wit would not be appropriate for the show.

His name was a random pull, but seriously, it'd be ridiculous if he was actually a guest. Pussies and cocks being thrown out and such, and him in his bow tie all flabbergasted.

[yumitree]

i'd like to hear a spirited debate between george will and todd glass on the topic of dungarees.

[Wizz]

as much as i would love to hear a thoughtful debate like you guys are describing, i'm not sure the podcast is the ideal place for it. i think the appeal of comedy and everything else is the atmosphere of friends talking about what friends talk about; a point-counterpoint debate would seem too forced, i think

[Tuohy]

Here's more of Todd in some sweet shit-coms:








This one's barely worth posting:

[Jenny]

"The only thing I can think of that I disagreed with gang on is persecuting the people who carried out torture (Jon Stewart said the same thing as well). It's not an issue of me disagreeing with what I'm hearing, but I think the show would be benefit from a dissenting voice."

Why do you disagree with it? Why shouldn't those responsible be prosecuted? I think our reputation would be better if we delievered justice for those gitmo prisoners who were tortured.

[bridgetosolace]

Why do you disagree with it? Why shouldn't those responsible be prosecuted? I think our reputation would be better if we delievered justice for those gitmo prisoners who were tortured.

When I think of the people who carried out said torture, I think of soldiers who are ordered to do horrible things (I know it's not the same thing). Jimmy mentioned on the podcast, for example, that the perpetrators now have PTSD and such, and I just feel sorry for them more than anything.

There's also the perspective of the torturers being the little guys. The root of the problem is people who ordered the torture, not the ones who carried it out. And we're never going to persecute the big fishes here. I'd rather not further ruin the life of the guy with PTSD by putting him through a trial and jail time/whatever.

I know that "Hey, I was ordered to do it!" is not necessarily an excuse, but at the same time, scapegoating the guy with little power while protecting those with power solves nothing.

Unless we're bringing down the whole lot of them, in which case I wont lose sleep over it.

[Jenny]

Well then, yes, I think those who initated the orders should also be prosecuted.I just think we need some kind of justice, we can't ignore the past no matter what Obama says.

Do you also agree with the argument that the government shouldn't be involved with marriage?

[bridgetosolace]

Well then, yes, I think those who initated the orders should also be prosecuted.I just think we need some kind of justice, we can't ignore the past no matter what Obama says.

I think they should, but they wont be. And since they wont be, I don't think it's fair to persecute to the little guy who can't really defend himself.

Do you also agree with the argument that the government shouldn't be involved with marriage?

I think it should be like this:

Marriage is a ceremony without any inherent legal benefits. If an individual church/temple/whatever is willing to marry gays or transgendered or dogs or whoever they want to, they are free to do so. If they don't want to, I don't think they should be forced to.

Any two consenting adults, regardless of their relation, can receive the current legal benefits of marriage. You can't argue that it's against your religion if it has nothing to do with it.

-

But that probably wont happen, so let the faggots get married.

This is too serious for this part of the forum, but I still think it's relevant enough to continue. It's discussed on a comedy show, so it's free range in the context of the show's discussion. I think. Sorry about the seriousness, though.

[Shane]

Haven't you guys seen A Few Good Men? "We follow orders or people die!!!!!!!!"

[aenemaTron]

If an individual church/temple/whatever is willing to marry gays or transgendered or dogs or whoever they want to, they are free to do so. If they don't want to, I don't think they should be forced to.[/SIZE]

No one is putting that forth as any kind of requirement, nor has anyone, ever.

[JimmyJimmy]

as much as i would love to hear a thoughtful debate like you guys are describing, i'm not sure the podcast is the ideal place for it. i think the appeal of comedy and everything else is the atmosphere of friends talking about what friends talk about; a point-counterpoint debate would seem too forced, i think

I'm with wizz. I tried to have a debate format in my pop&politics show, and it just could not be done. I could not find someone willing to admit to their true republican beliefs on stage, and the ones that would were absolutely fucking crazy, incapable of honest debate. Kind of like Elizibeth hasslback, and that is just boring and annoying.

Nothing Elizibeth Hasslebreath says sheds any light on anything. It is like she is there so we can see what the wrong view is first. She is willfully uniformed, and her brain is impenetrable to accurate information. Especially if that accurate information contradicts one of her religious beliefs. Isn't that kind of person just dull and painfully boring?

Although, when I was single, I used to love having sex with those kind of girls. Truth be told, they sucked the best dick, and were generally much dirtier in bed. All those conservative christian girls just love the christ out of fucking! I used date a little elizibeth when I was in the detroit area. It was when I was younger and could still stand someone like that. She looked just like Hasslebreath, and was also Super republican, and here is the kicker, her dad was a judge! Which made everything seem a little dirtier and that always makes the sex way more fun.

Anyway-

ANd I could box george will's ears in any time, any place, any where. That is not me bragging about how smart and clever I am. It is a statement about how, if you get most of your facts wrong and draw all the wrong conclusions from the facts that you get right, even a guy with a super intellect can get his clock cleaned by a jagoff comedian with a state college degree.

I think I use the clips as the person I am debating. They are staing their point and I am rebutting. I think the anderson cooper pot stuff was a good example of that . I don't need some idiot on the show to tell me that pot is addictive, or that gay marriage is wrong.

We already know what they are going to say because they are saying on tv all the time. What yuo don't hear all the time is the response to them. FOr christ sake, anderson cooper is on CNN, he is supposed to be the one speaking truth to power and debunking the spin miesters, and in general providing the debunking that I am providing, but things are so bad that I have to debunk the debunkers.

BTW I loved the "all in the family" show when I was a kid Archie Debunker was my favorite.


So what is my point?

I have no fucking idea. But I am glad you all listen and even gladderer that it really does spark discussion.

xo,
JimmyTheLeader

[Itslikeimsayin]

Hey Jimmy: How about getting Todd to get his facts straight?

Just kidding, but he said his CD would be released in May, and May has come and gone, and I've still not heard anything about a release date. Anyone have an update?

[Wizz]

jimmy's point is that i am the best

[pissedpissedofferson]

I appreciate the way Jimmy changes peoples' names into playground taunts, it's dumb, but it always makes me laugh.

[Wizz]

new ep is up and so far the first 30 seconds are mindblowing

[Wizz]

hey bridget how did you like the 15 minute torture discussion?