Slashdot Mirror

Holy shit Batman, America! Your levels of blind belief and ignorance have surpassed Stalin-era Russia, and are headed straight for North Korea!

That can be done with flash too, check The Daily Show and you'll see that the flash player adjusts on the fly to your bandwidth.

correct link below :

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-16-2010/in-dodd-we-trust

your understanding of the economic situation is too funny.

american financial market has not only been inflated 610x or so its value, but also these nonexistent, fraudulent papers have been traded to entire world countries.

this is the reason behind the 2008 crisis. and this is the source of the disparage. compared to that, yes, we can say real economic value only happens outside usa.

and the mechanic that provided that, is this :

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/in-dodd-we-trust

a fake reliable name rates other private organizations. i wonder where we have seen this before - ah - the private financial rating agencies which rated fraud hedge funds as AAA+ assets.

yes that works.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/in-dodd-we-trust

And don’t forget when the US was providing tech support to India. For India’s space program!

Maybe.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

I should probably have included the obligatory link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes

Using the daily show as a meaningful reference to anything says a great deal about those folks who consider themselves intelligent.
James Douglass
Garden City, Kansas

I should probably have included the obligatory link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-29-2009/deep-space-naan -- This is what your comment reminded me of.

What we learn from 'news stations' is to say it in the form of a question. "Teacher X a pedofile?"

There is no doubt that profit motivates many inventors, including some in that particular niche. Patents are a legal framework which enable people to profit from their inventions (and really, I see no reason people shouldn't be able to profit from their inventions in general).

It's possible this company could have made a profit without using software patents. Hard to know. William Rosen makes an argument that patents do drive invention and innovation. I don't have the breadth of knowledge to know if he is right or not, but it sounds reasonable. Certainly he collected a lot of data about the topic.

Indeed, as you mentioned, it is hard to know what would have happened without patents. In fact we don't really know. Hence there are shades of grey, and it is important to understand various sides.

Actually, just watch this. It's a good start. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-24-2011/24-hour-nazi-party-people

Don't you mean Stephen Colbert?

Jon Stewart does a pretty good Glenn Beck impression.

Don't you mean Stephen Colbert?

Jon Stewart does a pretty good Glenn Beck impression.

Don't you mean Stephen Colbert?

Jon Stewart does a pretty good Glenn Beck impression.

Don't you mean Stephen Colbert?

Jon Stewart does a pretty good Glenn Beck impression.

Maybe I should have included a link to the Jon Stewart segment in question.

It's a great impersonation of Beck.

As a European, I learned about Glenn Beck from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. These videos were made when Beck had undergone "ass surgery".

I love how when I counter and opinion suddenly proof is demanded when none was provided :) You're right, hypocrisy is quite amazing.

A link... sure... how about: http://www.thedailyshow.com/

The fact John Stewart can base an entire segment of his show off showing the lies Fox told just the day before (not once and a while, daily) is pretty much proof for any rational person.

Regardless of my political leanings, that fact alone would bother me and make me question them as a source.

If you would really like a detailed analysis, feel free to commission one, I'll be happy to consult on the project for my usual fee in doing such research :)

I thought Jon went over this already...you're not punny!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-29-2010/you-re-not-punny

damn it lets try this again

It's entertainment not politics.

There's a difference?

Yeah. Entertainment is funny.

But so is politics...

Of course it's easy to second-guess whoever OK'ed this setup, but perhaps now is the time to reconsider its design (e.g. end-to-end encryption so that operators can't read the traffic so easily, and access logging in the sense that you keep a log of who then decrypts what).

How about not engaging in activities that the citizens who disapprove of them risk a court martial, decades in jail, and being considered a persona non grata by many, to steer public attention towards those activities? The U.S. does not necessarily have to kidnap, torture, lie, cheat, bully, maintain extralegal prisons, secret prisons, obstruct justice, cover up war crimes, fund terrorist organizations that advance their interests, sell weapons to their enemies' enemies, illegaly spy on representatives of the United Nations, and so on and on and on.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-22-2007/billions-and-billions is U.S. diplomacy in a nutshell.

Raising taxes? Try again. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

Regulation? Ha. Regulatory agencies are so fucking stuffed with corporate cronies it's not even funny. You got oil exes in what formerly was known as MMS (Minerals Management Service) and Wall Street guys have been fucking tearing up regulations since the 1980s.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/why-were-bp-executives-hired-mms-fox
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-15-2009/elizabeth-warren-pt--2 (eloquently explained by Elizabeth Warren)

What's wrong with regulations anyway? 'cause I really want lead paint on my cadmium drinking glasses and diethylene glycol in my toothpaste and melamine in my pet's food and my car to explode into a fireball if rear ended and my heating furnace to leak carbon monoxide and e. coli on my chicken and spinach and botulism in my can food and motor oil used in cosmetic surgery and shall I go on?

Unionization? What decade are you from?

Never mind. You're just trollin'.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-2010/wham-o-moves-to-america

"Does that mean that, as Americans, we're gonna have to put our own antifreeze in our toothpaste?"

"..Yes."

That Kenyian communist hellhole?! What Republicans would be caught DEAD there?

Oh.

When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left.

This is true to an extent, but the popular left-wing media outlets generally don't LIE about what's going on. They have a liberal bias, but while they may try to lead their audience in a particular direction, they don't deliberately try to deceive their audience. I've seen several examples of Fox News doing just that.

Obama on taxes
Nuclear proliferation treaty
Video footage of protest
Ground Zero mosque funding

Then of course there's this:
Funding the GOP

And then there are other Republicans lying, not necessarily through Fox News:
Alan Grayson lying about his opponent (more)
Jan Brewer lying about decapitated bodies
Andrew Breitbart quotes Shirley Sharrod out of context

Please, show me where Democrats are lying this blatantly. Am I just not aware of it because I only get my news from liberal biased sources? If that's the case, then show me.

When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left.

This is true to an extent, but the popular left-wing media outlets generally don't LIE about what's going on. They have a liberal bias, but while they may try to lead their audience in a particular direction, they don't deliberately try to deceive their audience. I've seen several examples of Fox News doing just that.

Obama on taxes
Nuclear proliferation treaty
Video footage of protest
Ground Zero mosque funding

Then of course there's this:
Funding the GOP

And then there are other Republicans lying, not necessarily through Fox News:
Alan Grayson lying about his opponent (more)
Jan Brewer lying about decapitated bodies
Andrew Breitbart quotes Shirley Sharrod out of context

Please, show me where Democrats are lying this blatantly. Am I just not aware of it because I only get my news from liberal biased sources? If that's the case, then show me.

When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left.

This is true to an extent, but the popular left-wing media outlets generally don't LIE about what's going on. They have a liberal bias, but while they may try to lead their audience in a particular direction, they don't deliberately try to deceive their audience. I've seen several examples of Fox News doing just that.

Obama on taxes
Nuclear proliferation treaty
Video footage of protest
Ground Zero mosque funding

Then of course there's this:
Funding the GOP

And then there are other Republicans lying, not necessarily through Fox News:
Alan Grayson lying about his opponent (more)
Jan Brewer lying about decapitated bodies
Andrew Breitbart quotes Shirley Sharrod out of context

Please, show me where Democrats are lying this blatantly. Am I just not aware of it because I only get my news from liberal biased sources? If that's the case, then show me.

When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left.

This is true to an extent, but the popular left-wing media outlets generally don't LIE about what's going on. They have a liberal bias, but while they may try to lead their audience in a particular direction, they don't deliberately try to deceive their audience. I've seen several examples of Fox News doing just that.

Obama on taxes
Nuclear proliferation treaty
Video footage of protest
Ground Zero mosque funding

Then of course there's this:
Funding the GOP

And then there are other Republicans lying, not necessarily through Fox News:
Alan Grayson lying about his opponent (more)
Jan Brewer lying about decapitated bodies
Andrew Breitbart quotes Shirley Sharrod out of context

Please, show me where Democrats are lying this blatantly. Am I just not aware of it because I only get my news from liberal biased sources? If that's the case, then show me.

When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left.

This is true to an extent, but the popular left-wing media outlets generally don't LIE about what's going on. They have a liberal bias, but while they may try to lead their audience in a particular direction, they don't deliberately try to deceive their audience. I've seen several examples of Fox News doing just that.

Obama on taxes
Nuclear proliferation treaty
Video footage of protest
Ground Zero mosque funding

Then of course there's this:
Funding the GOP

And then there are other Republicans lying, not necessarily through Fox News:
Alan Grayson lying about his opponent (more)
Jan Brewer lying about decapitated bodies
Andrew Breitbart quotes Shirley Sharrod out of context

Please, show me where Democrats are lying this blatantly. Am I just not aware of it because I only get my news from liberal biased sources? If that's the case, then show me.

This reminds me of Fox News accusing Fox news co-owner of terror funding.

I love the fact Fox News did this to themselves because it forces this:

If Fox News tell the truth
Then Fox News is partly owned by terrorists
Else Fox News does not tell the truth

This reminds me of Fox News accusing Fox news co-owner of terror funding.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-20-2010/working-stiffed

Brief Waxman reference:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-21-2009/greener-postures

Not sure about funny, but there's a Waxman quote here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2004/war-on-error

The rest aren't jokes about Waxman (he's so goofy looking already... maybe they feel bad?) short segment here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-30-2007/the-house-of-wax

and he was a guest here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/henry-waxman

Pelosi:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-12-2009/waffle-house

This is a great example, he smacks Pelosi.

And an Obama mocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2P2innj12c

It's true he covers more Republicans unfavorably, but the numbers are closer than people think:
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953

Brief Waxman reference:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-21-2009/greener-postures

Not sure about funny, but there's a Waxman quote here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2004/war-on-error

The rest aren't jokes about Waxman (he's so goofy looking already... maybe they feel bad?) short segment here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-30-2007/the-house-of-wax

and he was a guest here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/henry-waxman

Pelosi:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-12-2009/waffle-house

This is a great example, he smacks Pelosi.

And an Obama mocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2P2innj12c

It's true he covers more Republicans unfavorably, but the numbers are closer than people think:
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953

Brief Waxman reference:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-21-2009/greener-postures

Not sure about funny, but there's a Waxman quote here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2004/war-on-error

The rest aren't jokes about Waxman (he's so goofy looking already... maybe they feel bad?) short segment here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-30-2007/the-house-of-wax

and he was a guest here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/henry-waxman

Pelosi:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-12-2009/waffle-house

This is a great example, he smacks Pelosi.

And an Obama mocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2P2innj12c

It's true he covers more Republicans unfavorably, but the numbers are closer than people think:
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953

Brief Waxman reference:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-21-2009/greener-postures

Not sure about funny, but there's a Waxman quote here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2004/war-on-error

The rest aren't jokes about Waxman (he's so goofy looking already... maybe they feel bad?) short segment here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-30-2007/the-house-of-wax

and he was a guest here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/henry-waxman

Pelosi:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-12-2009/waffle-house

This is a great example, he smacks Pelosi.

And an Obama mocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2P2innj12c

It's true he covers more Republicans unfavorably, but the numbers are closer than people think:
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953

Brief Waxman reference:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-21-2009/greener-postures

Not sure about funny, but there's a Waxman quote here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2004/war-on-error

The rest aren't jokes about Waxman (he's so goofy looking already... maybe they feel bad?) short segment here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-30-2007/the-house-of-wax

and he was a guest here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/henry-waxman

Pelosi:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-12-2009/waffle-house

This is a great example, he smacks Pelosi.

And an Obama mocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2P2innj12c

It's true he covers more Republicans unfavorably, but the numbers are closer than people think:
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953

If you watch the announcement of the event, it doesn't look like it's going to be mean-spirited. In fact it even looks like they are going explicitly out of their way to be non-partisan, note how Jon mocked groups like code-pink and those who said 9/11 was caused by Bush. If they keep going the way they started, it's hard to imagine it won't be a positive event, much like the Beck rally.

Love them for not doing the not-from-our-country crap. Probably the only newstertainment show I watch from the US for the same reason.

For those who don't know our two national treasures:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

http://www.colbertnation.com/home?xrs=sem_g_col_colbert_report

Way to twist it. He campaigned on those plans - that they were substantially SOFA is no big deal - for one thing Obama was campaigning on that general strategy at roughly the same time that the Iraq SOFA was being negotiated. No one with half a brain could listen to Obama's campaigning and take away that his goal was an immediate pull-out of troops upon inauguration.

I never suggested they should have pulled the troops out immediately. The fun fact comment was nothing more then an illustration to my comment about war protesters who trust Obama running the war verses Bush running the war even though it's essentially the same thing.

Although a dumbass who listened to the PR machine of his political opponents rather than think for himself would probably come away with that impression.

Perhaps you are talking about yourself here. I mean you fell over yourself taking things out of context and defending your supreme leader. Anyways, perhaps you should look at this PR talking point and get back to me.

There was a hell of a lot of bullshit about "cut-and-run" being spread around during that election.

that is because there was a lot of senators saying we need to just up and leave and let Iraq sort out their own mess. If you remember at the time, you will also have heard a lot of talk about how the war was lost and we need to pull our troops out of harms way. Also, I think you might be contorting the 2004 election with Kerry when john Murtha said we could never win in Iraq the best thing to do is abandon it.

anyways, that wasn't what my comment was about. It was about how anti war protesters don't mind Obama in charge of the war even though nothing substantial is different about it's execution.

Wow, I cannot imagine how on earth you got those points. First off, you don't just remove all the troops in a couple days, the results of doing such an ill advised troop withdrawal tends to be catastrophic. Just look at what happened when we basically did that in Vietnam.

Whatever gave you the idea that I expected the troops to be withdrawn overnight. I made the fun fact statement to show that there is no significant difference between Obama and Bush on Iraq which lends strength to my "once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything" comment.

Secondly, it's not just a matter of renaming the mission, they're there under a completely different mandate. By your logic, Operation Desert Storm is almost into its second decade.

No they are not. They are following the SOFA agreement to a T on this. Special forces are still going after terrorists and elements of Al Qeada, the rest of the support troops are training and doing support when absolutely neccesary. What mandate is different?

You know, John Stewart did a comparison piece on this in which he listed all the differences between Obama's plan and Bush's SOFA. All he could find was simplistic name changes that amounted to the same thing. But hey, if you know something I don't know, please point it out. I mean what exactly are the differences between the SOFA and Obama's withdrawal?

I'm going to ignore the rest of what you wrote as I believe you did so because you were too ignorant of the facts and had a knee jerk protect your leader response. Please read upon this before posting back.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider

"I'm not sure that's how probability works, Walter."

It's an amusing idea, but of course Beck has the full weight of Fox behind him.

One of the most insightful bits on The Daily Show was one in which Stewart pointed out that Gretchen Carlson, who poses as an "ordinary," unsophisticated and uneducated person, was a Stanford honors graduate and did work at Oxford:

Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down

Fox consistently broadcasts falsehoods, absurdities, and stupidity. It isn't because Fox is staffed by idiots. They are consciously and cynically manipulating people towards political ends that benefit the owners of Fox and News Corp, not the people they are manipulating. Fox holds its audience in contempt.

Democrats generate plenty of lulz.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2010/alvin-greene-wins-south-carolina-primary

Allow me to respond to your inquiry with youtube links!

Glenn Beck on 9/11 victims:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruzvmqbTpPI

That pretty much sums up the ridiculousness of his message. Also may I point you to the Daily Show link which basically rips the "WHO IS FUNDING THIS TERRORIST MOSQUE!?!?" to shreds:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

And here's a few more of The Young Turks on Glenn Beck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bbgsYV9DXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-aBUoO7aSA

TYT frequently rips open arguments with facts - and they do it to "both sides" [sorry if the links I posted don't have a lot of fact checking in them. I've been very critical of TYT but past clips do have plenty of facts to back up their claims]. Though lately it has been a lot of Fox News and republican bashing (can't really say there isn't a good reason for it lately).

Sorry, the race card isn't valid during a black presidency http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2008/the-race-card