Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Homer J Simpson

John Oliver is the best thing on TV.

Recommended Posts

The Guess the South America country on the map shtick is my new favorite thing.

I knew where Bolivia was this time though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody gives a damn about you bringing lunch aside from it being a non-starter if you don't.

:lmao:

Exactly.. the doc doesn't care. It is the guard dog at the front desk/office scheduler that you have to bribe. Only it isn't much in the way of a bribe, it is just SOP now... in fact you are as likely to hear them complain about what you brought as get a thank you.

Frustrating for me, because generally the surgeon actually cares about what I have to say versus a pharma rep. However the guard dog doesn't know the difference. On a few occasions, if I can find a sight line to confirm the surgeon is there, I will just walk back into the office and start talking to him/her - this PISSES OFF the staff. They come yelling and running after me, then the doc sees me and starts asking me questions.. they get confused.

you have far more experience than me with these people- but do they have any kind of minimum requirements to get a job?

considering they're dealing with our health, it's uncanny how the worst, most unreliable and idiotic people end up working front desks for doctors. I pity your day-to-day having to deal with these yabos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody gives a damn about you bringing lunch aside from it being a non-starter if you don't.

:lmao:

Exactly.. the doc doesn't care. It is the guard dog at the front desk/office scheduler that you have to bribe. Only it isn't much in the way of a bribe, it is just SOP now... in fact you are as likely to hear them complain about what you brought as get a thank you.

Frustrating for me, because generally the surgeon actually cares about what I have to say versus a pharma rep. However the guard dog doesn't know the difference. On a few occasions, if I can find a sight line to confirm the surgeon is there, I will just walk back into the office and start talking to him/her - this PISSES OFF the staff. They come yelling and running after me, then the doc sees me and starts asking me questions.. they get confused.

you have far more experience than me with these people- but do they have any kind of minimum requirements to get a job?

considering they're dealing with our health, it's uncanny how the worst, most unreliable and idiotic people end up working front desks for doctors. I pity your day-to-day having to deal with these yabos.

The majority of the staff is making near minimum wage - MA's/Front Desk/Phones/Scanning/etc. The PA's and RN's obviously require more.

Day to day I stay as far away from these people as I can. I make my money in the OR.. the rare office visits are due to some random obstacle where I am missing the surgeon in the OR.

Pharma reps can't come into the OR so the are like a Pez dispenser for these offices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'll be in the minority on this . . . the show is just not doing it for me so far this season.

I'm not laughing as much as I did last year.

I'll be interested to see how this season develops, especially as it relates to the main topic.

For example, the judge topic: the problem with judges is not whether they're elected or appointed. The real trouble is that judges are part of the government and almost always side with their buddies and against citizens. They're part and parcel of a corrupt "justice" system that is doing exactly what it's designed to do.

Yet, there was nary a mention of this. The problem is supposedly that judges are elected? Nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is supposedly that judges are elected? Nonsense.

Just because you think something is nonsense doesn't mean it is. Lots of scholarship out there on the problems with judicial elections.

That's fine, we disagree.

I stated why I believe it doesn't matter whether judges are elected or appointed.

Don't know what scholarship you're referring to. Maybe you can post some links and I'll check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread "goes down that road" can we all agree that Oliver's personal opinions are from time to time going to manifest themselves in the show. It's no different then watching John Stewart or Bill Maher in the regard. I don't exactly lean left in my politics so there have been episodes that rubbed me wrong, but it's the delivery and the approach that you need to focus on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is supposedly that judges are elected? Nonsense.

Just because you think something is nonsense doesn't mean it is. Lots of scholarship out there on the problems with judicial elections.

That's fine, we disagree.

I stated why I believe it doesn't matter whether judges are elected or appointed.

Don't know what scholarship you're referring to. Maybe you can post some links and I'll check it out.

Plenty of stuff out there about it. I haven't read this, but here's a Harvard Law Review article that seems to address a lot of it: ELECTING JUDGES, JUDGING ELECTIONS, AND THE LESSONS OF CAPERTON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread "goes down that road" can we all agree that Oliver's personal opinions are from time to time going to manifest themselves in the show. It's no different then watching John Stewart or Bill Maher in the regard. I don't exactly lean left in my politics so there have been episodes that rubbed me wrong, but it's the delivery and the approach that you need to focus on.

Its close to Stewart. It's nowhere near Maher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread "goes down that road" can we all agree that Oliver's personal opinions are from time to time going to manifest themselves in the show. It's no different then watching John Stewart or Bill Maher in the regard. I don't exactly lean left in my politics so there have been episodes that rubbed me wrong, but it's the delivery and the approach that you need to focus on.

Yeah, he's definitely a liberal, at least in the American sense. I don't know where he'd fall on the British spectrum. He's a very funny liberal though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread "goes down that road" can we all agree that Oliver's personal opinions are from time to time going to manifest themselves in the show. It's no different then watching John Stewart or Bill Maher in the regard. I don't exactly lean left in my politics so there have been episodes that rubbed me wrong, but it's the delivery and the approach that you need to focus on.

i think he's more a satirist than Maher. he's very much in the model of Stewart though. TDS fingerprints are all over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'll be in the minority on this . . . the show is just not doing it for me so far this season.

I'm not laughing as much as I did last year.

I'll be interested to see how this season develops, especially as it relates to the main topic.

For example, the judge topic: the problem with judges is not whether they're elected or appointed. The real trouble is that judges are part of the government and almost always side with their buddies and against citizens. They're part and parcel of a corrupt "justice" system that is doing exactly what it's designed to do.

Yet, there was nary a mention of this. The problem is supposedly that judges are elected? Nonsense.

no i agree, less laughs so far and a little less intrigue.

at some point I don't even care about some of the international stuff... i love it when he puts some south american country on the map knowing that 90% of the audience has no idea where it is.. and then messes with us.

But there are only so many of these topics out there that resonate with people... i do worry he will run out of good content.

But it's still entertaining, only once a week, and only 30 minutes... it definitely still holds my attention and gets some laughs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not laughing as much as I did last year.

no i agree, less laughs so far and a little less intrigue.

I agree with this also. That said it's only been 2 episodes. There were a few less spectacular episodes last year as well. Even if this is the new level, it would still be one of only about five weekly shows I actually make an effort to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread "goes down that road" can we all agree that Oliver's personal opinions are from time to time going to manifest themselves in the show. It's no different then watching John Stewart or Bill Maher in the regard. I don't exactly lean left in my politics so there have been episodes that rubbed me wrong, but it's the delivery and the approach that you need to focus on.

I'm not liberal either. He does make his case with humor which I appreciate, even if I don't agree. This approach will at least get you a hearing with many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'll be in the minority on this . . . the show is just not doing it for me so far this season.

I'm not laughing as much as I did last year.

I'll be interested to see how this season develops, especially as it relates to the main topic.

For example, the judge topic: the problem with judges is not whether they're elected or appointed. The real trouble is that judges are part of the government and almost always side with their buddies and against citizens. They're part and parcel of a corrupt "justice" system that is doing exactly what it's designed to do.

Yet, there was nary a mention of this. The problem is supposedly that judges are elected? Nonsense.

no i agree, less laughs so far and a little less intrigue.

at some point I don't even care about some of the international stuff... i love it when he puts some south american country on the map knowing that 90% of the audience has no idea where it is.. and then messes with us.

But there are only so many of these topics out there that resonate with people... i do worry he will run out of good content.

But it's still entertaining, only once a week, and only 30 minutes... it definitely still holds my attention and gets some laughs

i have no worries on this front. the amount of bs, hypocrisy, corruption, ridiculousness, and general douchebaggery in power is virtually limitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread "goes down that road" can we all agree that Oliver's personal opinions are from time to time going to manifest themselves in the show. It's no different then watching John Stewart or Bill Maher in the regard. I don't exactly lean left in my politics so there have been episodes that rubbed me wrong, but it's the delivery and the approach that you need to focus on.

Sure, absolutely. I have no problem with Oliver's politics driving the show, even if he is a liberal ninny (relax, it's a term of endearment).

I've said more than once I think he's funny and talented. I DVR his show every week, and I'll continue to watch.

And I'll also continue to post my thoughts on it here, mainly because I have no life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for this show to take off this season.

Oliver flexing his statism big-time in this one: fellating the FCC for "net neutrality" and calling for higher gas taxes because the gas tax hasn't kept up with inflation that the government itself creates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for this show to take off this season.

Oliver flexing his statism big-time in this one: fellating the FCC for "net neutrality" and calling for higher gas taxes because the gas tax hasn't kept up with inflation that the government itself creates.

Why is net neutrality in quotes?

Are you going to volunteer to pay to fix up all the infrastructure you depend on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for this show to take off this season.

Oliver flexing his statism big-time in this one: fellating the FCC for "net neutrality" and calling for higher gas taxes because the gas tax hasn't kept up with inflation that the government itself creates.

Why is net neutrality in quotes?

Are you going to volunteer to pay to fix up all the infrastructure you depend on?

I pay for the infrastructure every time I put gas in my car. If the government actually spent that money on upkeep and repairs then I would be OK with adding another penny or two to the tax.

But until they can show me how they are spending the current money fixing things,I don't want to contribute another cent to that travesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for this show to take off this season.

Oliver flexing his statism big-time in this one: fellating the FCC for "net neutrality" and calling for higher gas taxes because the gas tax hasn't kept up with inflation that the government itself creates.

Why is net neutrality in quotes?

Are you going to volunteer to pay to fix up all the infrastructure you depend on?

The net neutrality aspect of this is a red herring. It's just another power grab by the USG.

As for infrastructure, governments everywhere have appropriated monopoly power to build roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Now we're told that infrastructure is crumbling, which means these governments have done a poor job of taking care of their property.

So the solution to this obvious failure of government monopoly, according to Oliver, is more government (higher taxes).

It reminds of what the late great Harry Browne once said: "Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."

Now, as for the show itself, I watch it for the laughs. To me, it hasn't been as funny this year. Like I've said, though, I'm probably in the minority on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for this show to take off this season.

Oliver flexing his statism big-time in this one: fellating the FCC for "net neutrality" and calling for higher gas taxes because the gas tax hasn't kept up with inflation that the government itself creates.

Why is net neutrality in quotes?

Are you going to volunteer to pay to fix up all the infrastructure you depend on?

The net neutrality aspect of this is a red herring. It's just another power grab by the USG.

As for infrastructure, governments everywhere have appropriated monopoly power to build roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Now we're told that infrastructure is crumbling, which means these governments have done a poor job of taking care of their property.

So the solution to this obvious failure of government monopoly, according to Oliver, is more government (higher taxes).

It reminds of what the late great Harry Browne once said: "Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."

Now, as for the show itself, I watch it for the laughs. To me, it hasn't been as funny this year. Like I've said, though, I'm probably in the minority on that.

LOL, what? You're going to need to unpack that one for me, because I've spent a LOT of time reading about this issue and you're basically just repeating the GOP talking point about it. Would you rather live in a world where you have to pay Comcast $5 a month for your "Message Board" Internet Channel so you can visit FBGs? That's the world we were heading toward with ISPs not categorized under Title II. I can see an argument of Net Neutrality being a "power grab" if the status quo was that all traffic is treated equally and companies aren't "paying to play" as it were, but Comcast, Verizon, et al. have been fighting to make that world disappear for a decade.

So, please, explain to me why you think the FCC shouldn't regulate ISPs.

EDIT: Actually, I just read the rest of your post about infrastructure. Never mind. The way you write about infrastructure makes me think you'd prefer a USA where all roads are privately owned and operated, which, I don't even know where to being with that one. You've clearly got a warped understanding of how our nation works, so I hold no hope for getting a reasoned response re: "Net Neutrality".

Edited by mcintyre1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for this show to take off this season.

Oliver flexing his statism big-time in this one: fellating the FCC for "net neutrality" and calling for higher gas taxes because the gas tax hasn't kept up with inflation that the government itself creates.

Why is net neutrality in quotes?

Are you going to volunteer to pay to fix up all the infrastructure you depend on?

The net neutrality aspect of this is a red herring. It's just another power grab by the USG.

As for infrastructure, governments everywhere have appropriated monopoly power to build roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Now we're told that infrastructure is crumbling, which means these governments have done a poor job of taking care of their property.

So the solution to this obvious failure of government monopoly, according to Oliver, is more government (higher taxes).

It reminds of what the late great Harry Browne once said: "Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."

Now, as for the show itself, I watch it for the laughs. To me, it hasn't been as funny this year. Like I've said, though, I'm probably in the minority on that.

LOL, what? You're going to need to unpack that one for me, because I've spent a LOT of time reading about this issue and you're basically just repeating the GOP talking point about it. Would you rather live in a world where you have to pay Comcast $5 a month for your "Message Board" Internet Channel so you can visit FBGs? That's the world we were heading toward with ISPs not categorized under Title II. I can see an argument of Net Neutrality being a "power grab" if the status quo was that all traffic is treated equally and companies aren't "paying to play" as it were, but Comcast, Verizon, et al. have been fighting to make that world disappear for a decade.

So, please, explain to me why you think the FCC shouldn't regulate ISPs.

EDIT: Actually, I just read the rest of your post about infrastructure. Never mind. The way you write about infrastructure makes me think you'd prefer a USA where all roads are privately owned and operated, which, I don't even know where to being with that one. You've clearly got a warped understanding of how our nation works, so I hold no hope for getting a reasoned response re: "Net Neutrality".

You're wasting your time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, he's set the bar so high with these pieces that I keep worrying he'll fall on his face. It's the TV equivalent of watching a guy on a highwire without a net.

Love that he now has an ongoing feud with a South American dictator and his TV clown friend

:lmao: the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, he's set the bar so high with these pieces that I keep worrying he'll fall on his face. It's the TV equivalent of watching a guy on a highwire without a net.

Love that he now has an ongoing feud with a South American dictator and his TV clown friend

:lmao: the best

He is not in danger until he makes fun of people with real power and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, he's set the bar so high with these pieces that I keep worrying he'll fall on his face. It's the TV equivalent of watching a guy on a highwire without a net.

Love that he now has an ongoing feud with a South American dictator and his TV clown friend

:lmao: the best

He is not in danger until he makes fun of people with real power and money.

Like Putin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed it. And he has a point. And at least he gave a few seconds to saying that while the topic is the topic, the solution is not exactly easy and this is a complicated issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack wants to go back to the glory days of the pre-war US highway system. Before the government tore down the existing private network of highways that criss-crossed the country and replaced it with the terrible Interstates we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack wants to go back to the glory days of the pre-war US highway system. Before the government tore down the existing private network of highways that criss-crossed the country and replaced it with the terrible Interstates we have today.

That's clearly presumptuous and rude on your part, as I've never said any such thing.

One of the conceits of the statist is that he thinks that anything the government claims as a monopoly (roads, courts, police, mail delivery) could not possibly exist without the government.

Imagine for a moment if the government had decided to appropriate a monopoly on the production of computers.

Today's statist would say, "Without the government, we wouldn't have computers!"

Clearly this is not true.

Who would build the roads absent government? The same people who built the government roads: you know, people, construction firms, road-building companies.

But it would be done better and cheaper, and without all the corruption and waste endemic to the current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best episode of the season :thumbup:

I agree. Thought it was pretty funny.

Loved the Fanta piece and the DST piece.

Also thought the American Samoa voting piece was hilarious: "Hi, I'm from American Samoa, and I want to have the right to participate in the illusion that voting for dear leader will make a difference in my life!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack wants to go back to the glory days of the pre-war US highway system. Before the government tore down the existing private network of highways that criss-crossed the country and replaced it with the terrible Interstates we have today.

That's clearly presumptuous and rude on your part, as I've never said any such thing.

One of the conceits of the statist is that he thinks that anything the government claims as a monopoly (roads, courts, police, mail delivery) could not possibly exist without the government.

Imagine for a moment if the government had decided to appropriate a monopoly on the production of computers.

Today's statist would say, "Without the government, we wouldn't have computers!"

Clearly this is not true.

Who would build the roads absent government? The same people who built the government roads: you know, people, construction firms, road-building companies.

But it would be done better and cheaper, and without all the corruption and waste endemic to the current system.

Corporate charters for private financiers in the name of the common good was the norm for a long time in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack wants to go back to the glory days of the pre-war US highway system. Before the government tore down the existing private network of highways that criss-crossed the country and replaced it with the terrible Interstates we have today.

That's clearly presumptuous and rude on your part, as I've never said any such thing.

One of the conceits of the statist is that he thinks that anything the government claims as a monopoly (roads, courts, police, mail delivery) could not possibly exist without the government.

Imagine for a moment if the government had decided to appropriate a monopoly on the production of computers.

Today's statist would say, "Without the government, we wouldn't have computers!"

Clearly this is not true.

Who would build the roads absent government? The same people who built the government roads: you know, people, construction firms, road-building companies.

But it would be done better and cheaper, and without all the corruption and waste endemic to the current system.

Are you guys having a contest to see which of you can out-strawman the other?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

:shrug:http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm

Seems like the Federal Government got involved in roads from the 1920s on.

Also, corporate charters served a distinct public good as they were granted by elected legislatures and enacted a distinct privilege, no? They were also for limited times and dissolved accordingly, IIRC. It wasn't some executive federal action setting standards and the like for these charters...

anyway, back to John Oliver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show renewed for 2 more seasons... 35 episodes each season.. that's pretty good!

Guess they wanted to make sure comedy central wouldn't get him for the Daily show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who was the guy that mis-pronounced Samoa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show renewed for 2 more seasons... 35 episodes each season.. that's pretty good!

Guess they wanted to make sure comedy central wouldn't get him for the Daily show

Great posting!

And I live the fact that he said "this is why this show is on HBO" when he started swearing during this weeks episode

You can tell he loves the show and the #### they are letting him get away with.

And honestly he does bring up some topics and news items I've never heard of before. Not once in ten years have I thought about US territories and voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.