Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Per the creator, it's because Republicans can generally "take a joke," while Democrats "take it personally."

Saw this at the tail end of an article about Sarah Palin at the SNL 40th Anniversary Show. Before you "bash the source," it links to a supporting quote from NY Daily News.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/252072- ... h-reunion/

Because its so easy. The jokes write themselves.

Negative. Lorne Michaels is a narrow-minded progressive and hires only narrow-minded uber lib hateful writers under a misperception that being "hip" is synonymous with liberalism.

Look at the other projects he produces...they're ALL THE SAME. Poor writing, hateful political underpinnings, anchored by Mametish rapid-fire dialogue. No thought, no value.

I stopped watching SNL 20 years ago when the writing ceased being humorous.

travelinman67 wrote:Negative. Lorne Michaels is a narrow-minded progressive and hires only narrow-minded uber lib hateful writers under a misperception that being "hip" is synonymous with liberalism.

Look at the other projects he produces...they're ALL THE SAME. Poor writing, hateful political underpinnings, anchored by Mametish rapid-fire dialogue. No thought, no value.

I stopped watching SNL 20 years ago when the writing ceased being humorous.

That's probably around the time you stopped having a sense of humor.

travelinman67 wrote:Negative. Lorne Michaels is a narrow-minded progressive and hires only narrow-minded uber lib hateful writers under a misperception that being "hip" is synonymous with liberalism.

Look at the other projects he produces...they're ALL THE SAME. Poor writing, hateful political underpinnings, anchored by Mametish rapid-fire dialogue. No thought, no value.

I stopped watching SNL 20 years ago when the writing ceased being humorous.

Its still humorous, its just over your head. Your mental acuity is attenuating with age , you don't "get it" with respect to anything anymore, and the world is moving on and leaving you behind to sit in the dust and make incoherent jibbering noises as the sun sets on what is left of your demented self... .... the decline was so sudden....

Commienez and Densedawg go personal rather than defend SNL content...

...equals...

...Tman hits nail on the head, once again.

travelinman67 wrote:Commienez and Densedawg go personal rather than defend SNL content...

...equals...

...Tman hits nail on the head, once again.

No, it means you're too uptight. Lighten up, Francis.


You happen to be right, aside from Tina Fey spoofing Palin, SNL hasn't been good since the mid 90s. Learn to take a joke.




Btw, you getting upset over someone going personal is comical. That comment is beyond hypocritical.

SNL 1980s = SNL from 1995- today

travelinman67 wrote:Negative. Lorne Michaels is a narrow-minded progressive and hires only narrow-minded uber lib hateful writers under a misperception that being "hip" is synonymous with liberalism.

Look at the other projects he produces...they're ALL THE SAME. Poor writing, hateful political underpinnings, anchored by Mametish rapid-fire dialogue. No thought, no value.

I stopped watching SNL 20 years ago when the writing ceased being humorous.

So you liked it when Franken was writing?

Just watched a few clips on Hulu. The Jeopardy skit was good.

travelinman67 wrote:Commienez and Densedawg go personal rather than defend SNL content...

...equals...

...Tman hits nail on the head, once again.

You want me defend SNL for going after the easy target?


unravelinman67.... fails to keep up with his meds..... begins losing his tenuous connection to reality..... this is like watching Flowers for Algernon but the subject doesn't get smarter.....

Ibanez wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Commienez and Densedawg go personal rather than defend SNL content...

...equals...

...Tman hits nail on the head, once again.

No, it means you're too uptight. Lighten up, Francis.


You happen to be right, aside from Tina Fey spoofing Palin, SNL hasn't been good since the mid 90s. Learn to take a joke.




Btw, you getting upset over someone going personal is comical. That comment is beyond hypocritical.

Of course I'm right. The writing has become horrible. The original writers, including Buck Henry, Bill Murray and yes, Al Franken were brilliant. They spoofed human nature, not people...politics was open to every facet, not a singular anathemic party/candidate. If any class was targeted, it was probably corporate America's Madison Avenue surrealism.

And, BTW, I don't get twisted up by personal attacks...just pointing out it's the dimwitted troll's reaction when they been outmatched.

travelinman67 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: No, it means you're too uptight. Lighten up, Francis.


You happen to be right, aside from Tina Fey spoofing Palin, SNL hasn't been good since the mid 90s. Learn to take a joke.




Btw, you getting upset over someone going personal is comical. That comment is beyond hypocritical.

Of course I'm right. The writing has become horrible. The original writers, including Buck Henry, Bill Murray and yes, Al Franken were brilliant. They spoofed human nature, not people...politics was open to every facet, not a singular anathemic party/candidate. If any class was targeted, it was probably corporate America's Madison Avenue surrealism.

And, BTW, I don't get twisted up by personal attacks...just pointing out it's the dimwitted troll's reaction when they been outmatched.

You must get out matched quite often, because you'll be the first to do so. That's not an attack, that's the truth.

Ibanez wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Of course I'm right. The writing has become horrible. The original writers, including Buck Henry, Bill Murray and yes, Al Franken were brilliant. They spoofed human nature, not people...politics was open to every facet, not a singular anathemic party/candidate. If any class was targeted, it was probably corporate America's Madison Avenue surrealism.

And, BTW, I don't get twisted up by personal attacks...just pointing out it's the dimwitted troll's reaction when they been outmatched.

You must get out matched quite often, because you'll be the first to do so. That's not an attack, that's the truth.

Example?

And NOT a Cappy/D exchange...those are theater.

I'm curious: How can one, on one hand, claim to "have stopped watching SNL 20 years ago", while on the OTHER hand make a blanket statement like "the current writers are humorless". How would you KNOW if you don't watch it?

Is every skit a home run? No...but if you watch some of the guys/ladies who came out of that show in the mid-late 2000's and don't find them funny then you truly do NOT have a sense of humor any more.

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm curious: How can one, on one hand, claim to "have stopped watching SNL 20 years ago", while on the OTHER hand make a blanket statement like "the current writers are humorless". How would you KNOW if you don't watch it?

Is every skit a home run? No...but if you watch some of the guys/ladies who came out of that show in the mid-late 2000's and don't find them funny then you truly do NOT have a sense of humor any more.

A sense of humor is a sign of intelligence, and we've all watched in fascinated horror the sad spectacle of Unravelinman's slow motion departure from reality......

travelinman67 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
You must get out matched quite often, because you'll be the first to do so. That's not an attack, that's the truth.

Example?

And NOT a Cappy/D exchange...those are theater.

This thread. I joked, albeit sans emoticon, and you called me a commie.

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm curious: How can one, on one hand, claim to "have stopped watching SNL 20 years ago", while on the OTHER hand make a blanket statement like "the current writers are humorless". How would you KNOW if you don't watch it?

Is every skit a home run? No...but if you watch some of the guys/ladies who came out of that show in the mid-late 2000's and don't find them funny then you truly do NOT have a sense of humor any more.

Touché. Well said, Tom.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm curious: How can one, on one hand, claim to "have stopped watching SNL 20 years ago", while on the OTHER hand make a blanket statement like "the current writers are humorless". How would you KNOW if you don't watch it?

Is every skit a home run? No...but if you watch some of the guys/ladies who came out of that show in the mid-late 2000's and don't find them funny then you truly do NOT have a sense of humor any more.

Touché. Well said, Tom.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that during the Billy Crystal/Joe Piscapo/Norm MacDonald years there wasn't much to write home about (although I think that was the same basic timeframe as Dana Carvey/Mike Myers who were funny as fuck), and I didn't watch much.....but Will Ferrell/Tina Fey/Jimmy Fallon/Bill Hader/Amy Poehler/Jason Sudakeis are some of the funniest motherfuckers on the planet.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Touché. Well said, Tom.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that during the Billy Crystal/Joe Piscapo/Norm MacDonald years there wasn't much to write home about (although I think that was the same basic timeframe as Dana Carvey/Mike Myers who were funny as fuck), and I didn't watch much.....but Will Ferrell/Tina Fey/Jimmy Fallon/Bill Hader/Amy Poehler/Jason Sudakeis are some of the funniest motherfuckers on the planet.

This.

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm curious: How can one, on one hand, claim to "have stopped watching SNL 20 years ago", while on the OTHER hand make a blanket statement like "the current writers are humorless". How would you KNOW if you don't watch it?

Is every skit a home run? No...but if you watch some of the guys/ladies who came out of that show in the mid-late 2000's and don't find them funny then you truly do NOT have a sense of humor any more.

I stop in every once in a while...watch a few sketches. I'm not knocking the cast...I'm critical of the writing. I "get" the jokes...they're just not that humorous. Occasionally they have talented prople on WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WRITING...AND IT SHOWS! Justin Timberlake has contributed several of the better recent ideas.

Look back at the original characters...Chase, Belushi, Radner, Curtain. One of my faves was Emily Litella's editorial rants...
Violins on TV
Busting schoolchildren
Eagle rights
Making Puerto Rico a steak

Shit was pure.

And BTW Commienez...my name calling was in response to YOUR personal attack...which was absent of any comment or criticism of SNL. Just like now. Other than saying, "They're funny...you just don't have a sense of humor." What is your position on the status of the show's production/development in particular as it pertains to political bias; the original topic of this thread.

And see if you're able to comment absent a personal attack.

travelinman67 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm curious: How can one, on one hand, claim to "have stopped watching SNL 20 years ago", while on the OTHER hand make a blanket statement like "the current writers are humorless". How would you KNOW if you don't watch it?

Is every skit a home run? No...but if you watch some of the guys/ladies who came out of that show in the mid-late 2000's and don't find them funny then you truly do NOT have a sense of humor any more.

I stop in every once in a while...watch a few sketches. I'm not knocking the cast...I'm critical of the writing. I "get" the jokes...they're just not that humorous. Occasionally they have talented prople on WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WRITING...AND IT SHOWS! Justin Timberlake has contributed several of the better recent ideas.

Look back at the original characters...Chase, Belushi, Radner, Curtain. One of my faves was Emily Litella's editorial rants...
Violins on TV
Busting schoolchildren
Eagle rights
Making Puerto Rico a steak

Shit was pure.

And BTW Commienez...my name calling was in response to YOUR personal attack...which was absent of any comment or criticism of SNL. Just like now. Other than saying, "They're funny...you just don't have a sense of humor." What is your position on the status of the show's production/development in particular as it pertains to political bias; the original topic of this thread.

And see if you're able to comment absent a personal attack.

Ibanez took a light hearted and fair shot at you. If you had ANY sense of self deprecation you would have owned it or even enjoyed it.

travelinman67 wrote:And BTW Commienez...my name calling was in response to YOUR personal attack...which was absent of any comment or criticism of SNL. Just like now. Other than saying, "They're funny...you just don't have a sense of humor." What is your position on the status of the show's production/development in particular as it pertains to political bias; the original topic of this thread.

And see if you're able to comment absent a personal attack.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0[/youtube]

And Sarah Palin makes HERSELF a target by being unable to shut the fuck up.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, but you could argue that this has to do with the fact that comedy is about one-liners and not nuance. Conservative viewpoints often make less sense with a cursory, superficial look at an issue and trying to put opinion in the form of satire is generally harder for conservatives.

In my opinion the easiest targets on the left for satire are feminists and racial justice types. I think we all know you are just begging for a s***storm if you go down that road, though.

Ultimately, the agenda of any media is to get eyes and ears so they can make money. That's the important thing to keep in mind.

The executive order skit is seriously one of my recent faves.

"I'm an executive order...and I pretty much happen."