Football ("soccer") is a sign of U.S.A.’s moral decay

The performance is of course important, but the Dead Parrot Sketch depends far more on delivery and timing than does a political satire monologue. I can easily imagine Thatcher's attempt to perform it being a disaster, but I've seen her deliver lines that were funny because they were far more suited to her. She wasn't a Churchill or JFK, but she wasn't witless.

Every four years there is some shindig in either NY or DC where both of the candidates for president show up and deliver what is essentially a comedy routine. If you had to classify their schtick you would call it political satire. No matter who they are, they do a pretty good job delivering the routine including a few laugh out loud lines. Obviously they both have professionals writing their material for them and in this kind of a setting the audience is probably more inclined to find anything funny than they would in a comedy club, but they are funny. They do a pretty good job delivering very funny lines which if you read them, you would find them to be humerous.

Even experienced comedians would have trouble with the Dead Parrot sketch, not only because of the difficulty of Palin's deadpan part, but because the Monty Python version is iconic. It belongs to Palin and Cleese and any attempt by others to duplicate it will automatically pale in comparison.

(I don't know if it's the funniest sketch ever written, but it certainly is superb. It was the first Python sketch I saw and hooked me on them)

These quotes of Garofalo who, by the way, is known not simply as a performing comedian, but as an actress, author and pundit, were not part of a sketch, and not all of the quotes were from her stand-up routine. She's not a bad actress, but I think she is a terrible pundit, author and comedian, and that has nothing to do with her politics. She is often rambling and incoherent, and doesn't provide much evidence of whatever intelligence she may have.

Maher has done stand-up and does stand-up (in the form of monologues on his show) and I don't think you need to be familiar with his delivery to find the quotes I've provided funny. You need not trust me that there is some hidden magic in Garofalo's delivery, search out some YouTube clips of her.

And Pauline Kael didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon.

Drop the "oxy" and you have a fair description of your comment.

The narrowness of your experience is proof of nothing beyond how politics affects your tastes.

I don't know what the tags comment is supposed to mean, but I just specifically addressed that to the extent that you participate in threads based on topics other than the evil of the US, your contribution is always the same: the evil of the US.

Oh, and you think I'm stalking you? I'm sorry, I know it's rude to symbolically laugh at you, but, really, that's truly rich!

By the way, I've taken to addressing my volubility by segmenting my replies; breaking them into more easily digestible chunks. Here's Part II of my reply to your previous, insulting post:
***********************
To be fair, you do frequently participate in language threads, and usually without reflexively denouncing the evil of the US or the UK, or even calling someone a coward (I guess it doesn't require any great fortitude to come down on one side of the other of the Great Debate on the propriety of ending a sentence with a preposition), and I have seen several occasions where you were unshackled to your obsession, and graceful, but they are too rare, and that's a shame.

I also noted one health related thread where you confused Plantar Fasciitis with Plantar Warts. Fortunately bobsal was present to correct you, but perhaps you should stick with your two favorite tricks and your interest in language.

Perceptive of you to note my volubility although I expected it to be commented upon by someone before this. It has been on the rise of late due, in part, to my effort to be less confrontational in this forum. I’ve found that to do so requires more verbiage than a pithy, but snide bon mot. It also requires more space to provide responses that are more detailed and fact based than simply stating opinions, and this is also something which I am endeavoring to do more of. It has always been my intended practice to attempt to address the entirety of someone’s post (and particularly the meat of their argument) rather than cherry picking comments that allow for a mocking one or two line retort. I'm following through on that intent more often now and as a result have added to the length of my posts (Case in point was the detailed critique of the article you posted by some fellow who tried to lay all of the deaths of the 20th and 21st Centuries on America’s doorstep. By the way, I don’t believe you ever replied to that post. Did you send mine to the author and are now waiting for his response to copy and paste into the thread?).

Hopefully with time I will develop better editing skills and thereby reduce the length of my writings. In the meantime, the thumbs down feature is recommended to those who don’t enjoy reading what I write as much as I do writing it.

Returning to the subject of copy and paste JTT, I note that you continue to fail to respond to my suggestion or challenge that you be more voluble yourself and cease resorting to copying and pasting the work of others (without comment of your own) into a post. Since, when you actually write your own postings they are limited to either a brief and predictable refrain from your US is Horrible song, or calling someone a liar or coward, it would be refreshing to read something of substance that you have authored. It might also lead to the sort of responses you claim you want. Show us that your language skills extend beyond finding new ways to say someone is swallowing Uncle Sam’s semen.

In conclusion (I know, at last!) attacks on my physical or intellectual courage are not at all effective, and especially not when they are levied by someone who lacks the confidence to discuss a topic without departing from such a predictable and unoriginal pattern as yours.

PS: I realize that parts I and II of this tome may seem to belie my assertion that I am attempting to reform my combative ways, but I am doing so only as respects people who don't seem to be begging for it, and I have only ever laid claim to near perfection, not the full monty. I guess you feel I deserve your insults which is fine, but my goal is to simply tone down my aggression, not to become Jesus Christ. I'm only going to put up with one red and stinging cheek. I'm also going to only return the slap this one time, which is more a favor to other members than any ridiculously condescending notion of largess towards you.

Snide but pithy bon mot???? Please tell me you are typing this ego fest in jest, or for Christ's sake that you lisp. I know JTT is a disturbed person, everyone knows he is a disturbed, angry poster, and you spend all this time and ink on outlining your evidence to prove what everyone else already knows? Are you really that easily offended or just bored out of your mind? Never-mind, that was rhetorical.

I have to give you points for foraging the smart lingo from the thesaurus but you'll never be a William F. Buckley, Jr. But I'll give you this, I laughed a lot harder while reading your recent 'tome' than while reading your transcripts of Garafalo routine.

More Americans going postal...primitive violent lot. Wish they stopped exporting their way of life to the rest of the world. If you disagree with me ask the indians, oh thats right hardly any left!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/05/fourth-july-chicago-houston-indianapolis-gun-shooting

I'm afraid that this point you're trying to make is invalid, because you haven't demonstrated that rationality is correct.

Now you're being partisan. Thatcher had no concept of humour whatsoever, although she did inspire a generation of comedians. I honestly can't think of a single thing she said that was remotely amusing.

When William Hague became party leader he made his sense of humour a major selling point in contrast to Thatcher's legacy.

Why the discussion of Garofalo? I guess it is to change the subject, which is Coulter's stupid statement.

Also, I think you are big liar when you say you are constantly being told that Michele Obama is beautiful. I have never heard anyone write or say this. But I think it would be a fair statement to say that she is a beautiful person.

Thank you for your support to unknown artists, Finn. It's at that kind of thing I recognise a renaissance man. But does the comparison mean Coulter is just another buffoon?

"Thatcher had no concept of humour whatsoever, although she did inspire a generation of comedians. I honestly can't think of a single thing she said that was remotely amusing......"


Thatcher once said, referring to Willy Whitelaw.....: "Everyone needs a Willy".

You seem to be challenged when it comes to recognizing sarcasm, but I guess that's to be expected from someone who has difficulty appreciating that people may actually feel insulted by the insulting things she writes. It also never ceases to amuse me how often people with a pedestrian vocabulary assume (or at least wish to assume) that those who use big words do so only after consulting a thesaurus.

A thesaurus, by the way, like a dictionary is an excellent tool and recommended to anyone who wishes to improve their writing. With any sort of decent memory, trips made to them decrease sharply over time.

JTT doesn't offend me, he disappoints me, and my response to him wasn't intended to prove anything to you or anyone else in this forum, other than perhaps him. I'm glad you appreciated the humor in what I wrote, although I'm never sure whether you are laughing with or at others.

Wow, like Frank A, you appear to have found god, or become him, Finn. What a sea change.

For the whole deal tho' you've got to work on your honesty. I don't disappoint you. The things I post, which you have often attributed solely to me, deeming it my opinion, as I said you hafta work on your honesty, causes you great mental discombobulation. As well it should.

But it's highly dishonest to just dismiss incontrovertible truths out of hand because you don't want to hear or face them.

There is nothing partisan about appreciating the humor in a wry line. In fact, it has been precisely my point, in this thread, that partisanship shouldn't influence one's ability to appreciate humor, although it very often does.

While Thatcher won't go down in the annals of history as the British PM who gave Peter Sellers a run for his money, the claim that she had so concept of humor whatsoever is either deeply partisan or an accurate reflection of your sense of humor.



None of these lines are guaranteed to produce convulsions of laughter, but I would say that they pretty clearly demonstrate she had a sense of humor.
Wry to be sure, but, personally, I appreciate dry humor. Broad comedy, unless it is absurdist in nature (i.e. Monty Python), is not usually my cup of tea. I never found comedians like Jerry Lewis or Benny Hill all that amusing but it would be ridiculous to say that they didn't have a sense of humor, or to express absolute disbelief that anyone might enjoy them. If, however, I thought Hill was hysterical and Lewis entirely humorless, it might reflect some bias against Americans -or perhaps the French, since they seem to think he's a comedic genius.

What tickles our funny bones is a matter of personal taste. I have a friend, of Mexican heritage, who finds no great pleasure in watching Fawlty Towers, and I think he's missing a funny bone altogether, but it's certainly not the case that his opinion about the show is based on a bias against the British, or very tall men, or being offended by the portrayal of the Spanish character Manuel.

Squirrels, all over the place, look look look!

Well I'm challenged when it comes to understanding YOU, I'm not insecure about my intellect, unlike some fellow pedestrians. So, dunderhead, like most of the folks who come here for entertainment, I'm putting you on ignore. Not because of your smarts, ho ho ho, but because it's not nice to ridicule people like you. I might think you're a dope, but I shouldn't make fun of you just because you are full of hot air. Goodbye, Mon idiot. Enjoy your concept of genius. By the way, I have a copy of "Jane's, all the worlds morons". I was stunned not to find "Finn", but those crazy Brits insist on proper nomenclature.

Also I agree that dictionary's and a thesaurus, are crucial especially if you have studied more languages than English. But, I'm preaching to the choir, you've been everywhere, learned everything significant, and are fruitlessly trying to share your brilliant glow of superiority to all the unwashed. Peace be unto you and your finely tuned cranium.

Weren't you and Finn just playing kissy face a few postings ago, glitter? From passionate makeup to ignore in such a short span.

Surely this mean you're gonna dump your Finn sig line, glitter.

So much for you two's carefully crafted makeup or is this just a teen couple's spat?

Glitterbag, I was commenting on Ann. I don't think well of her; I think very little of her; I also don't think of her unless someone brings her up. I have known for years she is disregarded by many such as me, and enjoyed by others.

Someone did bring her up, re football and the US, so I looked. Her comment(s) about the sport I'm really getting to like are naturally of little interest to me, except as being astoundingly odd. I shudda not even responded to this thread.

No, it was to demonstrate a point, and I've no problem with continuing to focus on Coulter other than I've pretty much exhausted all I have to say about her. I appreciate that you would prefer this thread to be nothing more than a series of posts agreeing that Coulter is a horrible human being, consumed by hatred and who looks like a man, but sometimes we don't get what we want. The thread has also included a discussion of the World Cup and the game of soccer itself. Was that discussion intended to change the subject too?

As for my lying...Advocate, with your usual x-ray vision that enables you to see through people's mendacity, you've found me out. I was lying. People are not actually coming up to me on the street every day, telling me that Michelle Obama is beautiful. I'm so ashamed. I also rigged People Magazine's beautiful people's list so I could make my point...even more shameful.

American beauty: Michelle Obama named one of world's 100 best looking women


Look, Mrs. Obama is a stylish woman who dresses very well (and at great expense) and, from what I can tell, keeps herself in good shape. She's an intelligent, articulate woman who undoubtedly is admired (as are all First Ladies) by a large segment of the American people. She's not, by any means, physically ugly and all of the attacks made against her relative to her looks are mean-spirited (at best) while many are blatantly racist.

However, she has received a considerable amount of very positive attention for her looks and physical presence with the comment frequently made that she is the greatest thing since Jackie Kennedy (herself no great beauty) to occupy the White House. Admittedly, the gushing overreaction has subsided from the early days, but so has the gushing overreaction to her husband, and the former was definitely linked to the latter. (You only need to explore the attention paid to the model Iman's comment in 2009 that Mrs. Obama "is no great beauty" to appreciate the Beautiful Michelle frenzy of the early Obama years.)

It is interesting, and I think very telling, that your ire has been raised by my comment about Michelle Obama's appearance, but you seem to blithely ignore the comments made in this thread about Coulter's.

It is very common for criticisms of Coulter to include attacks (some quite vicious) relative to her looks. While the vicious kind made against Michelle Obama are generally racist, with Coulter they focus on her sexuality. Just take a look at some made in this very thread.

Unfortunately women in the public eye remain subject to entirely irrelevant attacks (again, often very savage) about their physical appearance as somehow a natural extension of criticism directed at the things they say, or write or do. The irony that liberals (including liberal women!) are not, at all, immune from this reflex is delicious.

Only if you find Coulter's comments equally devoid of wit, which of course I do not.

Which is why all your comedy references end in the 1970s.