quote:

Originally posted by coyotedude:
To my point....although Colbert is overzealous with his Trump targeted humor, poking politicians is fair game particularly when they can't take a joke, and provide a nearly endless amount of material to work from. Does it go too far at times? Sure. But it isn't a Nikki Glaser roast.

I'm out, thanks.

You don't really seem to get it at all.

Colbert, Kimmel, etc are not merely "poking" fun at politicians, they are leftist propagandists for the Democrats on broadcast TV, plain and simple. Colbert does not poke fun at the left, he has them on his show and short of fellating them, he props them up as gods- Obama, Hillary, Biden, Harris, etc. he has had them all on his show and gushes and worships them, while pushing lies and slander on Trump and other Republicans.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by coyotedude:


To my point....although Colbert is overzealous with his Trump targeted humor, poking politicians is fair game particularly when they can't take a joke

I love the intro, If I get banned then so be it. Charging Para’s machinegun nest, a righteous self sacrifice, for your message is far too important to be left unsaid. Pretty sure that’s not how banning works.


In Trumps first term, Colbert called the President “Putins cock holster”.

Humor huh? Trump can’t take a joke? Need to have a joke to start with.

Had Colbert called Obama the same thing, after Obama said,”tell Vlad I’ll have more flexibility after the election”, he would have been thrown off the air and banned for life.

A shame it took this long to remove such a despicable partisan masquerading as a comedian.

quote:

Originally posted by coyotedude:
If this gets me banned from SF, so be it. For the record however, I am a conservative, just not in the full on Maga crowd. The country is divided, and frankly I'm exhausted from Trump's 24/7 incessant need for attention. Whatever happens in the midterms, the country will survive.

To my point....although Colbert is overzealous with his Trump targeted humor, poking politicians is fair game particularly when they can't take a joke, and provide a nearly endless amount of material to work from. Does it go too far at times? Sure. But it isn't a Nikki Glaser roast.

I'm out, thanks.

Ever watch the Colbert "Vaccine" bit? Was that humor or propaganda? If you haven't Google it. It will make you and your crowd very proud. Colbert was not just a mouthpiece for the far left, he was their bullhorn.

Colbert isn’t being cancelled because he’s mean to Trump and conservatives. He’s not being cancelled because he’s a flagrant propagandist. He’s being cancelled because his show doesn’t make enough money. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by coyotedude:
.....I'm out....

...to lunch.

I have no idea if you are a plant or incredibly naive.

It's already been said here, but it may be that you need to hear this again, and again. There is zero, or almost zero, humor emanating from Colbert, Kimmel, Meyers, Fallon, etc. It is nonstop, pro-fascist political propaganda, and it is no different in spirit than anything put out by Joseph Goebbels under Hitler, or Pravda and TASS under the USSR, or North Korea's Central Broadcasting Committee, etc.

Fallon did try to assume a more left-of-center brand of humor 10 years ago. However that went out door because, I assume, he wanted to keep his job more than his self-respect. No doubt it cost him viewership. Does that not make you at least a little curious?

Ask yourself this: if Colbert was on the air as entertainment, why did the network continue to air his show year-after-year, even as it lost $50 million per year. Networks don't do that, they are there to make money. None of them have ever hesitated to cancel a show that wasn't performing, including mid-season, and without any notice- ever. $50 million a year in losses is a big deal, even to billion dollar corporations.

Your attempt to discount vicious slander and DNC-authored propaganda as simply humor is like calling CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC, NPR, MSDNC news. It is like calling the muslim slaughter of Jews and Christians missionary work. It is so absurd, it is hard for me to believe that we are having to comment on it.

Whether you are a plant here, or just extraordinarily naive, you are as lost as you can be.



.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Colbert isn’t being cancelled because he’s mean to Trump and conservatives. He’s not being cancelled because he’s a flagrant propagandist. He’s being cancelled because his show doesn’t make enough money. Period.

Making enough money? I think the last few seasons his show was upside down in the 50 million dollar range. Why? He was a propagandist and not entertaining at all. Beyond that he was an echo chamber for the far left. Darth, I think we're actually on the same page here

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster: He’s being cancelled because his show doesn’t make enough money. Period.

Yes. I was about to edit mine to add this.
Perfectly stated by DF.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
Making enough money? I think the last few seasons his show was upside down in the 50 million dollar range....

The timing is interesting. A major network is okay with losing $50 million a year, year-after-year, on an "entertainment" show, but decides to drop it after AID and other DNC slush funds are identified and cut off. It certainly could be a coincidence.

But, unlike any other "entertainment" show that is a big loser, Colbert was not dropped immediately. Instead, he was given a year long farewell tour, flushing another $50 million down the toilet. Networks don't do that.


.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Colbert isn’t being cancelled because he’s mean to Trump and conservatives. He’s not being cancelled because he’s a flagrant propagandist. He’s being cancelled because his show doesn’t make enough money. Period.

When half the country isn't mired in leftist TDS hate, you lose half your prospective audience, and, when you eliminate 50% of the market from your product then you don't make money.

When the way you run your show is 100% one sided hate, you don't make enough money, in the real world if your product doesn't create a profit, you get fired. Hollywood doesn't work that way.

I would postulate that Colbert is cancelled in some respect because his show became mired in a TDS based hate for Trump and MAGA. In doing so he lost viewers, and continued to hemorrhage viewers year after year since they don't want to hear him spout his Trump Hate all the time.

So yeah, he did lose his job because he and his staff decided to try and sell hate as comedy and it didn't work.

His show lost millions for years and it didn't get cancelled while Biden was the Napper in Charge.

If it was only about money he should have been gone years ago....

JMO

Making fun of Trump might be having a skit with the actor's hair being a parody of Trump's style. Or poking fun at any President for their hand gestures or speaking style. Though Ford was a very athletic man, when he stumbled on the stairs it was fair game to make fun of that, briefly.

When it is relentless and one sided, it is just cheerleading for the opposition. When it is promulgating falsehoods about what someone said or what their beliefs are, it is propaganda.

I guess if one has an emotion based dislike for a person, mean spirited attacks have a passing likeness to humor.

quote:

Originally posted by coyotedude:
I'm out, thanks.

You forgot to mention that you're a three-time Trump voter. Guys who pull this kind of stunt always say that.

But, hey, I get it- you're upset that we derive satisfaction from this asshole being off the air five nights a week. If you want to complain, though, don't tell us. "MAGA" didn't yank his bullshit. Talk to CBS.

The really great day is not today. No, the really great day is tomorrow, when it comes the time Goebbels, Jr.'s show is supposed to air, and it's not there.

quote:

You forgot to mention that you're a three-time Trump voter. Guys who pull this kind of stunt always say that.

I won't rise to that bait, but complaining? No. Calling it as I see it in a thread that has morphed into self righteousness through bashing a comedian over his 1st amendment right.

I've simply had it with the Trump drama, endless parade of mostly unqualified appointees, and the last straw is this 'reimbursement fund' for J6.

Whether it's Colbert, or pick a comedian... kicking politicians around has been a national sport meted out to both sides. It just so happens that Trump leads with his chin with some of the equally heinous comments through which he's normalized on the national level.

My last post on this matter.

We've been here before:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...960041025#5960041025

Let me tell you something: I despise perpetual contrarians. I don't want to hear your opinions on anything to do with President Trump or MAGA, because you've pulled this shit more than once, and I'm not going to put up with any more of it from you.

You want to talk about "bait"? Partner, you're smack dab in the middle of Trump Country, and you drop shit like this in here? You're the one who is trolling, unless you would have me believe that you are utterly without the first clue.

In this forum, stick to the topic of guns or whatever. Anything but politics. I've seen enough from you, and it's all the same. But, oh, you're just saying. Sure. Save it.

You're not going to hinder this celebration.

quote:

My last post on this matter.

Looky there. You got something right after all, because it most certainly is your last post on the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by coyotedude:
I've simply had it with the Trump drama, endless parade of mostly unqualified appointees, and the last straw is this 'reimbursement fund' for J6.

Looking thru your posting history, no such complaints about Obama or Biden. None. Two of the absolute worst presidents in modern history, there is no question, no doubt. Wonder why?

quote:

Originally posted by coyotedude:
My last post on this matter.

Time to celebrate.

Colbert lost sight of being a comedian that poked fun at Trump, which would be fine, we all get that to using his show as a bully pulpit for the left.

Carson did this for many years, and he stayed away from attaching his politics or one side of politics as forced by the entertainment industry the show, Colbert crossed that line.

He is also the victim of Late Night TV's falling ratings as people stopped tuning in to Main Stream TV and now have almost unlimited options, they look for entertainment that fits their personal choices, be it politics or not, and most of it streaming services.

Finally Colbert when facing the threat of falling ratings, financial issues with the show, refused to take a pay cut, the reported figure being $10 million of his $30 Million paycheck in order to shore up the revenue to expenses.

His staff is something like 200 people, and all of them are going to be unemployed. Let that sink in, he refused to give up a piece of his pay to help keep the business alive and all those people employed. That $10 million would pay a lot of $100K salaries. He's an arrogant ass that cares about nobody but himself and thought he was untouchable.

Johnny Carson on Politics and the Tonight Show.

It will be interesting to see how abysmal his numbers will be. Sure, he'll get some from curiosity but I hope its a fraction of the little view he has left.

By the way, I love the absolute cluelessness of this remark:

quote:

Originally posted by coyotedude:
Calling it as I see it in a thread that has morphed into self righteousness through bashing a comedian over his 1st amendment right.

Here, Perry Mason, see if you can find the problem with your argument that Colbert has a constitutional right to run his suck about anything on a Federally-licensed broadcast network:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...300084025#6300084025

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
Can somebody please explain to me why anyone would agree that the federal government should threaten ABC with their license for letting that jackass Kimmel exercise his first amendment right?

FCC Regulation of Broadcast Media and the First Amendment


Portion of the opinion delivered by SCOTUS Justice Byron White in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969)

The broadcasters challenge the fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules on conventional First Amendment grounds, alleging that the rules abridge their freedom of speech and press. Their contention is that the First Amendment protects their desire to use their allotted frequencies continuously to broadcast whatever they choose and to exclude whomever they choose from ever using that frequency. No man may be prevented from saying or publishing what he thinks, or from refusing in his speech or other utterances to give equal weight to the views of his opponents. This right, they say, applies equally to broadcasters.

Although broadcasting is clearly a medium affected by a First Amendment interest, differences in the characteristics of new media justify differences in the First Amendment standards applied to them. . . . Where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. If 100 persons want broadcast licenses but there are only 10 frequencies to allocate, all of them may have the same "right" to a license; but if there is to be any effective communication by radio, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. It would be strange if the First Amendment, aimed at protecting and furthering communications, prevented the Government from making radio communication possible by requiring licenses to broadcast and by limiting the number of licenses so as not to overcrowd the spectrum.

This has been the consistent view of the Court. Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. No one has a First Amend- ment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech." By the same token, as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves. This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326 [of the Communications Act], which forbids FCC interference with "the right of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC...

Please note that the court's use of the term "new media" results from the issuance of this opinion in 1969, when the practical broadcasting of television signals was barely two decades old. The definition of the term "new media" has morphed in the modern day, to refer to content originating on the internet.

.

Kennedy vs Nixon was the first national broadcast with video of Presidential candidates, Kennedy came across as Tanned, young, an eloquent debater, Nixon, pasty white and not as polished.

Interesting enough, history says that if you listened to the debate on Radio, Nixon swept the room with Kennedy on points voters wanted, but those who watched TV based much of their decision on how Kennedy appeared. Remember Nixon had just had surgery, didn't wear make-up.... TV became the end all be all of political control over elections. Likely why Obama won as well...

Many think that turned the tide of elections, no longer about substance, it was from then on about appearances. Not just Beauty vs Ugly, but voters could see the candidates in person.

Changed politics for all the future.

Now Spencer Pratt is changing it again with AI and regardless of how the LA vote is run by the D he has changed the way candidates do ads.

It's a brave new world....

Colbert didn't comprehend that network TV is a dying medium, just like terrestrial radio....

This is where Bill Mahar has created a space again with more than just liberals, yeah he isn't a Trump fan, that is ok, but he's stopped with the bashing, and become a bit more mellow in his podcasts over politics. Not he's not a conservative mouthpiece but that's ok.

About the only people that got their shit together in the political comedy talk show world is Gutfield....