Media
SNL‘s O’Donnell Really Is a Witch
- Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:18am by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
(via Newsbusters)
When I watched this during the live show I had the same feeling Noel Sheppard did: “In the end, this wasn’t the slightest bit funny, and seemed a waste of 90 seconds of air time.” It started out with promise and then just petered out.
Much more effective would be this effort earlier in the week by the Destructor Bros. Language warning applies.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 585 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (153)
RocketSurgery
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:21pmSo, how long will it be before someone produces satire videos of an Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Trumpka, or Van Jones saying, ” I am not a communist. I am just like you. ” ?
Report Post »akamaikamaaina
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:39pmlol
and. . .o‘donnell’s pearls were of very fine quality. snl’s a very poor quality
the fat guy was seriously funny.
Report Post »jimjonjr
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 6:50pmFor the record none of whom you mentioned would need to be parodied saying that because none of them would say it. Parody my friend is about taking a FACT and stretching it just enough to make it funny. Saturday Night Live is a comedy show, not a political screamfest.
Report Post »RocketSurgery
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 8:05amTroll Food,
“Change your hair, change your dress, change your shoes, and you will win this competition.”
Report Post »Piers Morgan
GIGO
RocketSurgery
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 9:29amJIMJONJR
“Because none of them would say it.” None of them would say what? “ I am ”not“ a communist”. Or none of them would say; “ I am just like you” ?
If your trying to troll, you need to do something else. Your not good at it. If your just having a hard time right now, then try being polite. Most people will respond in kind and you are likely to learn something you didn’t know. If you don’t understand, ask.
Report Post »Jamestown
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:59amThree even. More telling words that people ignore …that not only identify the source of American Garbage…but a world wide poisoning…..“LIVE FROM NEW YORK”
Report Post »Cuba
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:49amWere is the rev. Wright skit…? Now that could be real funny, chickens and all…
Report Post »Gabby in Florida
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:42amNO talent SNL is boring and if other media outlets would not comment on their stupid skits no one would know they exist? Shallow not one thing funny about that skit at all. Poor attempt at humor and this is what we call bullying Hollywood start your campaign against it here.
Report Post »Tobias Funke
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:42amAlways making fun of anyone who has american values. Huzzah!
Report Post »76
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:36amSNL blows monkey nads.I Tune in for approximately 2 minutes to see what malarkey the cone heads are up to. MADTV was waaay funnier and no where near as permeated with liberal BS.
Report Post »Paleo Archer
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:05pmLove the Avitar…
Report Post »NeoKong
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:33amThe skit was so funny that they had to dub in a laugh track and applause before a live audience.
Report Post »Anyone remember the few times they made fun of Barack Obama….?
Then all of a sudden it stopped.
I guess someone didn’t think it was funny.
C. Schwehr
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:37amGuess who?
Report Post »reconmarine
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:21amThis story is old and tiresome. How about the liberals focus on addressing issues now? It’s because they have no issues to address. Give me someone who dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager anyday over someone continues to dabble as a Marxist as an adult. I want someone who is willing protect this country and if she can wiggle her nose and make a donkey disappear forever then she has my vote.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:37amAh, the voice of sanity! Semper Fi, friend. My only question is whether the DNC paid SNL for the time and effort to put on that political hit piece? It certainly wasn’t funny…but then, Saturday Night Live hasn’t been funny in DECADES. It would get better ratings if it was put on a local access channel in NYC since that’s the audience it is aimed at…left leaning New Yorkers.
CARRY ON!
Report Post »tierrah
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 4:16pmRecon: I thought we were supposed to send a message to Washington? I wouldn’t care if Elmo was running against a current Democrat Socialist, I would vote for Elmo this time around, then oust Elmo out for Oscar the Grouch next time. I want them OUT period!!! Can we be any worse off than where we are headed now?
Report Post »Capt_Spalding
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:17amInteresting how The Left sees their most “relevant” shows are actually “comedy” shows, ie. SNL, Colbert, Stewart. These shows have “comedy” writers as opposed to actual fact-finders and journalists. Well, it all seems to be a big joke to them anyway. Their choice of gubment is the biggest joke of all.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:09amHere would be a good spoof ad:
The ad starts with a door, and a fist from someone just offscreen comes into few and knocks on the door. Christine O’Donnell answers the door, pearls and all, looking a little surprised. The person just off screen asks her something that the audience can’t quite make out. O’Donnell answers:
“My beliefs don’t allow me to lie, for I am righteous. Yes, they are upstairs in the attic.”
The person off screen comes into view as he walks in the door, wearing the uniform of an SS officer. Cut to a few minutes later, as a family, each with a yellow star sewn onto their clothes, is marched out of the house and onto the street, where they are brutally machine gunned by another SS soldier.
Cut back to Christine O’Donnell, with halo.
OK, maybe that would not be as funny of a spoof, but I can’t believe after she said she would collaborate with the Nazis that the witch accusations are the bigger story. As far as damage control goes, I’m still waiting for the ad in which she says: “I am not a Nazi collaborator. I am like you: I would lie to Hitler to save Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Catholic priests and other victims of the Holocaust.”
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:17amInteresting – I too believe that statement is much more damning than something she did while a teenager!
Report Post »http://wp.me/pYLB7-db
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 6:15pm@Publius
Disclaimer: In this particular situation, Christine O’Donnell was wrong. You don‘t tell the truth to the Nazis if you’re hiding a Jew and they come looking for them. Bill Maher (I think it was a Bill Maher clip?) was obviously giving a ridiculous example to challenge O‘Donnell’s tell-the-truth morality, but she did drop the ball by not calling him out for a ridiculous example and suggesting that there are no exceptions to a generally safe rule-of-thumb.
However: You have some of your facts wrong. O’Donnell did *not* say that she would “collaborate” with the Nazis; she said that God would provide a way for her to keep the Nazis from discovering the Jews without her having to lie to them. That’s very different from the way you have characterized her position.
Another disclaimer: I do not accept the rationale of her statement, and I would point out to her the story of Rahab in the book of Joshua. Rahab hides a couple of Hebrew spies from enemy soldiers, and when the soldiers come looking for the Hebrews, Rahab tells them she does not know where they are. In the New Testament, Rahab is commended by the biblical authors for these deceptive actions which protected the lives of a couple of Hebrew men. Evidently, the Bible is supporting the practice of lying–under certain circumstances; in this case the same very circumstances that Maher brought up for O’Donnell.
However: It is important to paraphrase O‘Donnell’s words accurately.
I would ask O’Donnell today if she still would take the same position. That is important to know, for it gives an insight into how she negotiates competing moral values; and as you said, it is much more important than the trivial I-was-a-teenage-witch business. This clip was several years ago, and she may have rethought some of her earlier opinions.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 6:57pmHonestly CaitlynsDad, I really don‘t think it’s worth your time to split hairs when it comes to collaborating with Nazis. You know this too, and that is why you added so many disclaimers. I guess I just don’t understand why you bothered to argue. To not lie, and thus to endanger the lives of a group hiding in your house and to aid the Nazis is simply collaboration.
Frankly, what is worse is that she thinks that even though God allowed 6 million Jews and millions of others to dies in the Holocaust, he really really really doesn’t want her to lie, so he will make it OK for HER. Honestly, is this what a sane person thinks?
This was an incredibly easy moral challenge to answer, and she was unable to do it. I would indeed like to hear her take on this question now, but as of yet, no clarification has been offered. I blame the media across the political spectrum for not asking for it.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:33pm@PP
Report Post »Collaboration implies intent; in fact, that is precisely how it is defined in the dictionary. If she believes God would have provided her an out, collaboration was not her intent. That’s not splitting hairs; that’s insisting on using a word within the confines of its actual meaning. If we can’t do that, then we can’t have intelligible dialogue. (One of my favorite lines in a debate between an atheist and a Christian was when the Christian said, “First we’re going to talk about language.”) I‘m sorry you insist on describing O’Donnell’s statement to mean what you want her to mean, rather than what she actually meant.
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:56pm@PP
Report Post »Footnote: The reason I added the disclaimers was to offset the possibility of you reading arguments into my response that I never said and never meant. That is to say, if I had merely quibbled with your characterization of O’Donnell as “collaborating” and added no disclaimers, I feared that you would have had a verbal conniption about my defense of O‘Donnell’s remarks in the totality of their substance, even though I would have neither said nor meant any such thing. You had done this same thing before, when I questioned the anti-Pledge lawyer’s rationale for not saying the Pledge, and you read into that that I was in favor of jailing the lawyer (which I neither said nor meant). Having done the same thing here, you may have proceeded to accuse me of collaborating with Nazis. As it is, my disclaimers avoided all that, and I limited the damage to you merely accusing me of splitting hairs, though in fact I was just using a dictionary and insisting on not reading into a person’s words sentiments and opinions that are just simply not there.
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 12:35am@PP
Report Post »Sorry for multiple posts–it’s just that the syndrome of “I should have said that too!“ always hits me after hitting ”reply.”
It occurs to me to ask: If O’Donnell were a Nazi collaborator, why was she attempting to protect the Jews by hiding them in the first place?
PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 7:00am“Collaboration implies intent; in fact, that is precisely how it is defined in the dictionary.”
Report Post »Now, intent becomes a tricky thing here. Dictionaries are all well and good, but the question was grounded in history, and my response was as well. Do you think that all acts of collaboration in Nazi-occupied territories were carried out by people with a firm “intent” to collaborate? Don’t you think many collaborated for self-preservation, or because they wanted to maintain law and order? The long and short of it is, O’Donnell puts her personal beliefs regarding her own salvation ahead of the interests of others, even if it puts them in danger.
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 8:51amPublius, I think this is where your difficulty lies. Your version of the ending of this parable is different from O‘Donnell’s, yet you obstinately insist on superimposing your version onto O‘Donnell’s. In O‘Donnell’s version, at the moment the Nazis show up at the door, God intervenes in order to protect both O‘Donnell’s honesty and the Jewish lives. In your version, the Nazis show up at the door, O’Donnell tells the truth, God remains absent, and the Jews are hauled off and executed. If your version is correct, then O’Donnell becomes–I still wouldn’t say collaborator, but certainly enabler. But that‘s not O’Donnell’s version of how the story ends, and so you‘re guilty of reading into O’Donnell’s remarks a conclusion to the parable that the remarks themselves exclude.
Inevitably, you’re going to misrepresent the statements of another person if you insist on superimposing presuppositions of your own that the other person simply does not share.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 9:07am@Publius
Report Post »Clarifying final sentence to append to the previous post:
You’re living in a world where God does not intervene; Christine O’Donnell is living in a world where God does.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 9:51amCaitlynsDad,
I’m living in a world that if God WAS to intervene, it would be to save the millions of victims of the Holocaust, not to prevent O’Donnell from telling a fib. In the world I’m living in (the real world), God did no such thing, and O‘Donnell’s Jews would have been either murdered in the street or marched off to a camp. Of course, this is not O‘Donnell’s version of the story, and I never assumed that this would be how she thought things would turn out; her version is a fantasy, and that’s exactly the problem! Her version of the story has nothing to do with actual history or reality. When it comes down to it, do you want your elected leaders to be more concerned with protecting those people that they have sworn to protect, or do we want someone whose faith is so inflexible that they require a deus ex machina to avoid collaborating with Nazis.
I‘ve never suggested that O’Donnell used the word collaborate, or that is what she thought she would be doing, but that’s just what it is, and I honestly have no idea where you think you can draw the line between “collaborator” and “enabler.” Definitely seems like you are splitting hairs.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 10:24am@Publius
Report Post »I think we’re closer to being on the same page. You are certainly correct, and it is certainly appropriate to ask O’Donnell, whether she still believes that deus ex machina is anything more than just a literary device. Like I said, we need to know how she negotates competing moral values, and we need to know whether she has grown beyond her earlier view of things. That’s your view of the situation, and it is also mine. I was only asking you be careful in not characterizing your own views as hers. Your exact words were “she said she would collaborate”; and that’s not what she said. If she could be convinced that her belief in a deus ex machina is an absurdity in this situation–something that might happen in a bad novel but not in real life–then I hope she would say, “Well, then I would lie.” (She should be asked.) The problem is not that she’s willing to collaborate with Nazis, the problem is that she believes (presuming she still does) in a fantastical solution to the problem where she wouldn’t have to choose between one moral value and another.
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 10:34am@Publius
Report Post »The difference between collaborator and enabler is that a collaborator is someone who actively works with another to achieve a common goal. An enabler is someone who passively allows another to achieve a particular goal without making an effort to stop him.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 1:26pmWell said, and while I still don’t agree with you regarding the enabler/collaborator distinction, In doubt that’s something either of us are going to budge on.
I do find it ironic that in this conversation you are willing to argue for shades of gray in the question of collaborating with Nazis vs. enabling Nazis, while in our previous conversation you were more than willing to strongly imply that “libs” who refuse to say the pledge (in this case, on command) don‘t love America and don’t deserve their civil rights. If only you would have more of an appreciation for nuance and for the “benefit of the doubt” when dealing with those that do not subscribe to your particular political views.
For my own part, I would be happy to listen to O’Donnell disavow her previous statement, but I haven’t heard it yet. Then again, as I’ve said, the media has dropped the ball and hasn’t asked her.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 2:28pm@Publius
I do enjoy our conversations. I can concede that people who refuse to say the Pledge aren’t un-American (if I implied that, I didn’t mean to, and I apologize) and are more concerned with the question of coercion. I was merely mystified by why, if they did believe the words, they’d have trouble saying them–and as I pointed out in a response to Raven Glenn on the same thread, there are certain settings in which oaths are entirely appropriate. Someone being sworn in for testimony takes an oath, for example. However, that may have more to do with my difficulty in thinking as a libertarian thinks. Madeline Murray O’Hair, in a debate, once insisted she didn’t have to swear to God in court to tell the truth because she can tell the truth without that. Well, that is a senseless statement to me, though it‘s senseless only because I don’t share her presuppositions.
In terms of this conversation here, I can see why you would perceive me as splitting hairs. Though (if you’ll permit me one last illustration), in this context I would see the difference between collaborating and enabling as similar to the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. Both result in the same end, and are therefore the same, but the law does recognize that there’s a moral difference to made when considering that question of intent, and that’s why there are different penalties for the respective sentences. We agree that O‘Donnell’s comments are troubling, we just think they’re troubling for different reasons.
Report Post »thetang
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:09amsnl is on it’s way out! Thank GOD!!
Report Post »LukeAppling
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:01amThe more the left nitwits attack the better the Tea Party candidates seem to do.
Report Post »Saturday Night Live is only on because those who watch it want desperately to recapture the originality of 20 years ago. It is much like the Woodstock experience a drunken, drugged orgy that has morphed into a mystical “experience”. I like to inform everyone the show SNL is just a left-wing propaganda act much like Michael Moore, Chevy Chase,Bill Maher, or Katie Couric grasping for past success.
2
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 1:43pm30 years ago. They almost ook it off years ago. They should off and saved the name.
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:58amI bet that she avoids Salem Ma. http://commonsense21c.com/
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:55amhahaha!! much funnier than last weeks skit.
good job delaware. thank sarah palin for this bufoon.
Report Post »DMD
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:13amTea party is in a WIN WIN situation in DE.
Report Post »If Odonnel wins great. The most important thing is we got the slimeball R incumbant out.
If the D wins it will be the same as the R incumbant so who give a flip.
The Message has been sent. Its RINO hunting season.
C. Schwehr
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:32amI guess you must be from Delaware then….you’re a much bigger buffoon.
Report Post »RobertCA
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:38amExactly DMD well said , Reps or Dems if you’re not gonna do what WE THE PEOPLE want = you’re OUT !!!!!! Enough with phony representatives .
Report Post »Cuba
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:47amI guess your a fan of the bearded Marxist
Report Post »Joseph_Plumb_Martin
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:48pmCan’t wait till they goof on Iott
Report Post »4jschaefer
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 2:39pmQ: How many liberals/progressives does it take to make a real joke?
Report Post »A: Two (Obama’s parents)
MrButcher
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 2:58pmdon’t you people get it?
by nominating O’donnell, we ARE going to get the bearded marxist and probably not take the senate majority.
no fan of castles either but he would have been better than coons.
her nomination was political suicide and makes the tea party look bad.
this was simple political strategy and logic.
blown by palin’s wreckless endorcement and fringe members of the tea party in a closed election.
hey, i love the tea party and do consider myself a member.
i just don’t want sarah palin anywhere near the levers of power if she thinks amatuers like this deserve to be in the senate.
“i’m you”
Report Post »groan
GoingBeck
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:52amHermione Granger would support Christine O‘Donnell I’m sure. It’s going to take some magic to fix the mess two dysfunctional administrations and an inept congress have made.
Report Post »raybojabo
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:11amI’m confused.I thought libturds liked witches.They’ve always supported Hillary.
Report Post »pb999
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:52amI think Eddie Murphy is on SNL. He is funny once in a while.
Report Post »Cuba
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:43amWas, back when it was funny
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 5:41pmComedy shows used to make fun of everyone. What happened?? They’ve become political, a propaganda tool. It’s a pity really. Letterman, Stewart, SNL all at one time were quite entertaining. Now, I think a lot less of them. It’s sad when entertainers forget why they have a platform in the first place. It sure isn’t because they are political visionaries. In fact in this case they tick off more than half their audiences. Not too bright on the business front either!!
Silversmith
Report Post »RobertCA
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:48amWho watches SNL anymore , the great names in comedy are gone or not working with them anymore .
Report Post »As for the remaining comedians on this show , please choose another job cause you’re not comedians .
BlackCrow
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:48amAnd what about Obama’s Cocaine and Marijuana use? Just a youthful indiscretion.
DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!!
Report Post »AZBOB
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:46amThat makes him a hero to the left.
Report Post »jimjonjr
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 6:42pmYup, just like George W Bush’s youthful cocaine use.
Report Post »MikeRaleighNC
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:47amYawn…..
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:41pmExactly…and it’s pathetic for liberals (who claims to be tolerant of others) to go on a “witch hunt”
Report Post »Rhoadrash
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:41amThe sad thing is a lot of liberal minded people let comedy skits influence their opinions. Like the popular kids in school forming a group opinion of someone who is not as pretty or socially gifted as they are. I thought both clips were funny.
Report Post »chirodoc007
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:37amSNL, as it always has, seems to be again entering a potentially long drought where nothing they do is really funny.
Report Post »Capt_Spalding
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:35amI hear this SNL is a “comedy” show? Hmmmm… don’t see it.
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 5:28pmMore like a funnel for the vast left wing conspiracy
Report Post »Slevdog1
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 10:46amIt’s had its ups and downs, definitely downhill now. I miss Matt Foley!
Report Post »ju87stuka
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:30amWow…NBC is pulling out all the stops to help the Dems in November. From Meet the Press, to SNL, to even Scarborough – the shameless lib promotion/desperation is getting sickening. If SNL was honest, they’d do a parody on that REAL witch, Nancy Pelosi.
Report Post »Paleo Archer
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:04pmThat’s OK, let them have their fun…their nervous laughter…it will be all over on November 2nd.
Report Post »jimjonjr
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 6:41pmDude, Sense of humor? Have one? Seriously, if this parody would destroy O‘Donnell’s chances you’re nuts. She’s doing just fine all by herself.
Report Post »Heinrich_Bar
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 1:47amIt seems as though SNL is doing a parody of SNL. I wonder if they get a tax break everytime they bash the right.
Report Post »JGP
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 4:41pmPaleo, It won’t be all over Nov 2nd. We still have the Divider-In-Chief in there and we need to hold whatever repub’s get in there accountable and kick their arse out if they just join the club.
Report Post »DMD
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:25amTell me when is Saturday Night Live on again?
I like the fat dudes video…funny
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:38amFat dude was way funnier than SNL maybe they should hire him on thier writing staff.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:25amYes. This is much funnier and closer to home.
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:31amIs SNL still on???
Report Post »WestOfThePecos
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:41amBarely.
Report Post »Anarcho Capitalist
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:46amThis guy is like a Greek God shinning in the sun! Flip-en awesome!
Report Post »2
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:46amWhat’s a SNL? Is this a typo? SNAL
Anyone, What is a SNL?
Report Post »Cuba
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:41amDid anyone notice the basement rafters,… this one of our basement dwellers who only exist to work for Soros. No wonder they write as they never deal with people,… they don’t. well other than the pizza guy/gal. Come out into the sun, it won’t burn your skin….? Or will it…?
On second thought stay in your basement it might be safer.
Report Post »Doc_Slammin
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:20pm2 : Saturday Night Livre = SNL. It used to be really funny when Jon Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Gilda Radner, Lily Tomlin, and Jane Curtain were around. It’s gone downhill.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 4:36pmDeuser; in what way specifically is this funny? Gallows humor is considered the means of insane people.
Report Post »jimjonjr
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 6:38pmM31sailor: Yes, and it’s celebrating 35 years on the air!
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 9:53pm2
SNL is Saturday Night Live
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:48pmWish O’Donnell was a witch than she could make sure SNL was taken off the air and never heard of again.. NOW that would be funny all the 18-30 year old Kool Aid drinkers with NO WHERE to get their once a week news..
Report Post »Areyoukiddingme
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 8:41amThe 300 lbs bearded guy just made me shoot coffee out my nose…. send me your donations and i will go to grandma’s house and order pizza tonight.
Report Post »