Daily Show visits Liberty City
by Justin McElroy 
{ Apr 30th 2008 at 8:00PM }
Though they do repeatedly mention the violence that the series is (justly, we guess) known for, they manage to put it all in perspective at 3:43 in the piece on Antonin Scalia that we've lovingly embedded after the break.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Doom3killer @ Apr 30th 2008 8:13PM
that's hilarious
Vandalus @ Apr 30th 2008 8:15PM
Scalia is so intellectually dishonest, it's a freaking joke. Oh, this was supposed to be about GTA IV ... My bad.
tmacairjordan87 @ Apr 30th 2008 8:21PM
Well he's a conservative. What did you expect?
Obie @ Apr 30th 2008 8:27PM
And to think out-of-touch bloated douchebags like him make the final call on things....unbelievable.
NoHitHair @ May 1st 2008 3:11PM
But he's the Mary Poppins of America! Didn't you hear the report?
Never missed classes, rarely was ever late, straight A's throughout his entire academic career and "so unpretentious" it's hard to believe someone so flawless, so praise-worthy, so unyielding in their pursuit of the pinnacle of achievement and success--
Oh, I'm sorry. I suddenly forgot I don't define a person's individual worth based on American society's disgustingly flawed and exploitative benchmarks. My bad.
Obie @ Apr 30th 2008 8:15PM
$2.99 for a Peach! Not today f**kface! LOL
tmacairjordan87 @ Apr 30th 2008 8:22PM
Why that attached to your comment when I clicked vandalus I'll never know
Obie @ Apr 30th 2008 8:27PM
WTF? You are right the comment button is borked!
DemonGSides @ Apr 30th 2008 9:08PM
Conservatives aren't jokes, idiots who don't know the political spectrum are, on either side.
Rabidkeebler @ Apr 30th 2008 8:21PM
Loved the comparison between gamers outside Gamestop and the the Wedding Dress sale.
Farseer (GDI) @ May 4th 2008 1:25PM
I wonder if they got rid of the problematic ad?
Farseer (GDI) @ May 4th 2008 1:26PM
Sorry - supposed to be a reply for Raikage. Sorry
Raikage (LDF CRAB BATTLE!!!) @ Apr 30th 2008 8:34PM
Ok this is like the 7th BSOD* I've gotten today and second time FF crashed, this needs to stop Joystiq.
*Black Screen Of Death due to the stupid adds they have when you + or - someone's comment.
Nick the Hero of Canton @ Apr 30th 2008 8:37PM
When I + or - a comment I am taken to a black page with nothing on it.
On topic - I'll watch it in a minute but Daily Show is good stuff...I want to see Colbert put this game in it's threat down though.
finnith @ Apr 30th 2008 8:38PM
Adblock
Raikage (LDF CRAB BATTLE!!!) @ Apr 30th 2008 8:40PM
Yeah adblock is on, I wouldn't be using FF without it.
That's most likely the reason it crashes. It just goes to a black page, I can't go back or refresh.
unfriendly_cat @ Apr 30th 2008 8:49PM
If these transition ads don't stop soon, I'll have to stop checking Joystiq during the day.
Raikage (LDF CRAB BATTLE!!!) @ Apr 30th 2008 8:52PM
I don't always have a problem with ads... but when they are crashing FF and the 6+ windows/tabs I have open at the time... Yeah, I have a problem.
playwhutyalike @ Apr 30th 2008 9:22PM
I gave you a + and I didn't get the black screen.
Vista rules!
Raikage (LDF CRAB BATTLE!!!) @ Apr 30th 2008 9:24PM
I hit refresh because it my email said I had a reply. I got the BSOD again...
OSX rules!
hvnlysoldr @ Apr 30th 2008 9:27PM
Try NoScript. I haven't gotten any at all. (knocks on wood)
mko @ Apr 30th 2008 9:43PM
Hahaha, I wish you could machete people while you were driving in the car!!
P.S. No prob voting/refreshing ever using FF3b5 and AdBlock Plus on XP.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 30th 2008 10:10PM
Actually, I've gotten the screens and I'm running Vista. So much for that theory.
playwhutyalike @ May 1st 2008 9:37PM
Oh look, it's Fid Wang Sheppy, here to challenge somebody's comment. Again.
Farseer (GDI) @ May 4th 2008 1:24PM
Vista, FF 3b5, AB+, no problems here. I even turned off AB+, and things work fine. huh.
Shawn @ Apr 30th 2008 8:58PM
Stewart's a pretentious douchebag! But sometimes he still gets it right.
Carrie @ Apr 30th 2008 9:07PM
I like how you can tell that the footage playing behind Aasif in the second video is being played in reverse. I guess you can't drive backwards in GTA4 :P
Tiptup300 @ Apr 30th 2008 9:14PM
Great couple of videos.
lee @ Apr 30th 2008 9:18PM
since when are flamethrowers in GTA IV? lol their writers are stupid.
Shmil @ Apr 30th 2008 9:26PM
the same time when machete's are available in GTA IV. You're the type of person who hated south park's "make love not warcraft" episode because it featured inaccurate alliance vs. alliance fights.
David @ May 1st 2008 12:22AM
Flamethrowers and machetes were avaible in previous GTAs. I haven't played this one yet (will have to wait till after the exams) but it's plausible for them to think that if those weapons were available before they should be available in the newest instalment.
playwhutyalike @ Apr 30th 2008 9:23PM
Yeah, stupid writers doing what they love for a living. What a bunch of douches.
paradox @ Apr 30th 2008 10:01PM
Hilarious and almost perfectly on point with a keen sense of whats right and wrong. Classic Stewart.
Keep in mind, that their average viewer dose not know a thing about GTA, so flamethrowers and machetes are just part of the joke.
Bucket @ May 1st 2008 3:41AM
Yes, that explains all the hooting & hollering right after he mentioned the game. Cause I go "WHOOO! YEAH!" to things I know nothing about all the time.
NoHitHair @ May 1st 2008 3:06PM
Yeah, the hooting and hollering from 3 people in the audience.
I think his point is proven.
Orionsaint @ Apr 30th 2008 11:00PM
That was classic! I love the reporter in Libery City "Loss of life is in the 1000's. It is devasting!" Yep thats Liberty City.
Orionsaint @ Apr 30th 2008 11:02PM
They were being sarcastic guys, relax. You sound like nerds. NERD VOICE - There's no flamethrowers in GTA! lol
Jon Hansen @ Apr 30th 2008 11:07PM
Actually, I think Scalia's point about torture not being cruel and unusual punishment is completely valid (if not a little uneloquently made by the Justice, especially when taken out of context). He uses "cruel and unusual punishment" as a term of art, implicitly referencing how it is addressed in the constitution. Applying the constitutional meaning to "cruel and unusual punishment" COURTS are barred from sentencing parties to "cruel and unusual punishment". Since individual prison guards tortured Guantanamo detaineess, without being ordered to do so by United States Courts, it makes no sense to contend that prisoner torture violates the prohibition agains cruel and unusual punishment. Hence, this is why Scalia LOLed. Law School FTW.
David @ May 1st 2008 12:22AM
He doesn't say that tortures aren't cruel and unsual punishment what he says is that they aren't punishment. I know what the constitution says and I understand your argument but your argument is not Scalia's argument.
Also the eight Amendment doesn't say "Courts are barred". It says "excessive bail shall not be require, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted". This language contrasts with the preceding amendments in the sense that Courts aren't mentioned. It could be argued that the intention for that omission was to make sure the amendment didn't apply exclusively to the courts. That way it can also be applied to other goverment agents such as police officers for example.
Rayonic @ May 1st 2008 1:07AM
The gist of his argument is that "punishment" is something that happens after you're found guilty. You have a trial (of some sort), and then are punished for specific crimes.
Thus he's saying that the court has no constitutional ground to rule on this matter, and that Congress will have to pass legislation.
Trickob @ May 1st 2008 1:16AM
David, you took the words right out of my mouth. ...and then some!
HarDCoRe ManSTuFF tomato STyLE @ May 1st 2008 3:02AM
gta IV will now have loads of shows ridding it sucessful coattails :)
making parodies and poking fun @ it and what not
Mutagenaric @ May 3rd 2008 7:27PM
This just in, Justice Scalia: Into S&M? More after the break...
Kidding. But the point is a valid one: while the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause was meant to apply to the death penalty and suchlike, it wouldn't be the first time we've taken laws and pieces of legislation out of context to our own advantage, would it?
I think the point is, do you think torture is wrong, or is it right? Not saying ANYTHING about effective, obviously, just whether or not it's wrong or right. That's what SHOULD have been asked, I think.