Slashdot Mirror

One of the funniest Daily Show bits ever:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87155&title=News-I%27d-Like-to-F@#k

Well, you have something that MIGHT happen and something that MIGHT NOT happen. 50/50.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225921&title=large-hadron-collider

(sorry, that's been the joke around the office here all week)

John Oliver was on-location at the LHC for the Daily Show http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225921&title=Large-Hadron-Collider

I'm really tired of the overuse, especially in the news media, of the words "could" and "might".

Oh, yeah? And what about question marks?
 

For you, evidently, Capitalism exists to provide us with great things (and be discarded, if it fails â" or appears to). In fact, its existence derives from Human Rights â" those, with which we are endowed by our creator. It is my right to bake pizza, write software, issue stock and buy it. The society is not suposed to allow me to do it merely for fear of not having pizza â" it must allow me to bake it, because it is my right as a free man to do so, or anything I please (which is not actively harming others).

Sadly, this view is getting eroded over the years, and we are worse off because of it. But that's why the US is Capitalist to begin with â" it is not written anywhere in the Constitution, that we must be such, we just are. China, for a counter-example, became Capitalist deliberately, because they've decided (correctly), that it is the most efficient way of running an economy...

Mexico and many third world nations are the best capitalist nations in the world because they don't have a middle class. The middle class in general is bad for capitalism, you can outsource their jobs to foreign countries or import cheaper labor here.

I would suggest that you read Super Capitalism when you get a chance. Corporations should exist to maximize profit while governments should exist to help its citizens. People actually died due to air pollutions (yeah I know the government shouldn't stop corporations from polluting and naturally selecting out the weak citizens.)

It's odd that you equate the Government to only the federal government (of which I'm not a huge fan.) State and local governments are great as well, especially if they pay for public schools and universities. Pay for research like NIH, NSF and LBL (I interned there.) Look at the internet and how we're communicated right now, damned federal government. If only the government didn't pay for this, I would never have had to interact with you. We should have waited for Fox News to create the internet for us. Or perhaps Microsoft.

It's funny because in general I'm a libertarian. My ideal government would focus on military security, Police, Fire fighters, science and education. You're making me seem like a far more liberal person than I truly am. I voted for Ron Paul last election (wrote him in after the primaries.)

But letting the government run TV or radio (and thus free us from all solicitations) is gravely dangerous and may lead to totalitarianism within a generation.

Am I being trolled? Seriously, I can handle it but I fear that you're earnest. NPR is far from government run and they ask real questions, they don't read from Bushes or Obama's talking points. Even my beloved Simpsons lampoon Fox News.

Yeah, cause those poor beautiful people in Sweden are... so... poor... because they lack the infinite bliss that is what, Baconnaise(TM)?

Actually, I'm pretty sure Benjamin was talking about "public provisions made for the poor" and not merely public provisions made for the commonwealth.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=the-stockholm-syndrome
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=the-stockholm-syndrome-pt.-2

Yeah, cause those poor beautiful people in Sweden are... so... poor... because they lack the infinite bliss that is what, Baconnaise(TM)?

Actually, I'm pretty sure Benjamin was talking about "public provisions made for the poor" and not merely public provisions made for the commonwealth.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=the-stockholm-syndrome
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=the-stockholm-syndrome-pt.-2

You want horrors? You got it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=The-Stockholm-Syndrome

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=The-Stockholm-Syndrome-Pt.-2

Let me quote the summary so people don't feel the need to actually view the videos as they may come away feeling as if they were not serious.

"Wake up! You're living in a socialist nightmare!"

Face it, Sweden. You need these mega corps running your government. If you don't let them how will you ever become more like America?

You want horrors? You got it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=The-Stockholm-Syndrome

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=The-Stockholm-Syndrome-Pt.-2

Let me quote the summary so people don't feel the need to actually view the videos as they may come away feeling as if they were not serious.

"Wake up! You're living in a socialist nightmare!"

Face it, Sweden. You need these mega corps running your government. If you don't let them how will you ever become more like America?

But there are some senators that think that gay marriage will lead to children being born out of wedlock. The video isn't working for me right now, but I think this is the right clip.

As explained in this Daily Show clip.

...is the new TV? (Starts at 1:16 min.)

what financial services bust did we have in the 70s? and everyone will agree that the depression ended much sooner than 1951.

I never said that we had a free market, we had no such thing. I am saying that a free market is impossible to achieve. The closest thing we had to a "free market" it what we had during the late 19th century all the way through the depression, and we know how that turned out. If government doesn't do the regulating then corporations will end up just adsorbing a vacuum of control and using it to create a monopoly behemoth: basically a government in which nobody has any control or say.

A neutral market is heavenly and works best with efficient government regulation that is equally and regularly applied: Free markets are good for people, but history says that free markets are very bad at staying free. Government must step in and make sure the market stays free (ie preventing the market from shunning new competitors) or you get anarchy. Your ideal is noble but your missing the crux. You should be fearing some of the large corporations, those corporations that attempt to act like government, much more than you should be fearing government; as you can vote in government, and you cant vote, at least in any democratic way, in a corporation.

heres the video i referenced: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=224255 the interview in the 3rd part.

I don't think this counts as a cheat code, but it's close to god mode in my opinion:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

check out John Stewart's crack about illegal downloading.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=Baracknophobia---Obey

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey&byDate=true

I like this one.

If you haven't seen it you should watch this daily show sketch.

What's the Matter with Denmark?

and

Denmark's Military Arrogance.

Apparently we can add legalized pot to the catalog of horrors you mention.

What's the Matter with Denmark?

and

Denmark's Military Arrogance.

Apparently we can add legalized pot to the catalog of horrors you mention.

I wish Slashdot had embed tag just for this.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219507&title=Felonious-Monkeys

They actually argued about monkeys for hours.

For a frightening (and funny) view of the current status of the Republican party check out Jon Stewart's coverage of the CPAC (conservative political action conference) meeting.

Does the question mark libel-proof any unfounded allegation?

... because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap.

Whew, I couldn't agree more! Because it's been scientifically shown that exposures to gay people is what causes one to be gay.

Of course it does, just ask Ed Heeney.

Jon Stewart came up with a solution a couple weeks ago. Fast forward to about 4:15 in this video.

This is why we should employ Jon Stewart's idea. Fast forward to about 4:15 in this video.

why are you asking us? ;)

Who's asking anything?

Documented here.

Another World

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/study-nbc-news-doesnt-fol_n_139162.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/28286392#28699663

I can see the partisanship, I don't quite see the childish "haha your stupid!" attitude. I think if you want something that compares to Fox's level of immaturity you need to visit comedy central.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=210922&title=msnbc-replaces-fox-news

Don't forget the Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=91140&title=jason-jones-180-%E2%80%93-nantucket :)

Can we get link-speak added to that Lake Superior State University list of things that must die? The links you assigned to all the words there had no special meaning to any particular word. Particularly with Slashdot's little citing engine throwing block quotes behind every one, it just makes it terribly annoying to read. Why not keep things legible and list links in an orderly fashion:

Nickalodeon
The Daily Show
South Park
MTV
TV Land

See, it's not hard.

Stealing? Who's talking about stealing?

Viacom puts many of their shows online.

Don't worry, he'll fix everything on his First Day :)

John Kerry? Is that you?

If you were actually paying attention, you would notice that this isn't what McCain and Palin are saying, this is what Obama supporters such as yourself claim they're saying.

Wait, are you denying the fact that Palin and McCain have been talking about how only certain parts of America are the real America? This is just one example of a message the McCain campaign has been trying to pound in. Spokespeople for McCain/Palin kept going on and on and on about it as well. It's not like this hasn't been brought up or anything.

Even on BBC World the other day, a McCain representative started talking about "real America". When the Obama representative pointed out the idiocy of claiming that only certain parts of the country are "Real America", the McCain representative blew up and tried to delfect the criticism by changing the subject.

Hence, why I think it's an example of Obama mudslinging rather than the other side.

Wait, so if an Obama supporter says something, Obama is automatically to blame, but if a McCain supporters says something, McCain is completely innocent?

I saw no such evidence on the site. Where is this located?

Ever heard about Google? Random search result.

I just don't understand the obsession with mudslinging.

You don't understand the desire to keep things honest? Figures.

But we also need to consider the benefits of mudslinging. Namely that it reveals problems with the other candidate.

No, mud slinging clouds the issue and moves the focus away from politics, and over to lies and deception.

A candidate with a lot of problems such as Obama is going to collect a lot of mud.

What problems? McCain has more problems than Obama, considering the fact that he is just about a carbon copy of Bush in 2008. Same team, same tactics.

You just made me remember this ( starts at 1:35). Cracks me up every time...

Barack Obama wasn't actually in the Senate when the joint resolution was discussed and eventually passed on 2 October 2002. However, he was busy making an excellent speech at a Chicago anti-war rally. Barack wasn't elected until 2004. Still, had he been in Congress at the time, he would have voted against it and he has repeatedly supported withdrawal from Iraq.

Amazing you can find McCain supporters anywhere, let alone in Slahsdot.

I've asked this question many times: Where are all the McCain supporters? Apparently, 45 percent of the nation is voting for John McCain -- I don't know why they feel that way or who they are. Granted, I am in college and we young people really like this Obama character, but I have yet to talk to a McCain supporter. Sure, some feel that Obama is not to be trusted (should anyone be given the level of trust we give the president?) or that he lacks experience (does anyone have the right experience for the unknown?), but all of these people are still voting for him, because they see McCain as far worse.

When it comes down to it, I can't see myself voting for someone that supports teaching creationism as a science -- I've talked in front of the Kansas School Board against doing so. I can't see myself voting for someone who does not support net neutrality. I can't see myself voting for someone with a vice president who doesn't know what a VP does. I can't see myself voting with a party that has a ridiculous double-standard. Conveniently, all these shortcomings lay with one candidate. </logicalFallacy:paradeOfHorrors>

The worst part is when you get it home and discover that it's actually crab porn

> How many people on Slashdot (who are more knowledgeable than the average citizen) can name their state senators?

Kyl & McCain. And the latter has been replaced with some kind of doppleganger in the past 3 years.

I've _always_ supported for McCain in the past. But no more. Three years ago, when he decided to run for President, he changed completely.

He used to be a no-nonsense guy. He'd shoot the breeze with the press and take on any questions they wanted to give him. Now, he's become a fake. He started sucking up to Bush like nobody's business, and that's when this "vote with Bush 90%+ of the time" thing happened. He wasn't always like that, but right now, I have no idea what he really stands for.

He's opposing his own immigration bill. His own. He's become a "defender of sexism" after being the guy who loved the joke, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father!" The Republican hypocrisy on experience & sexism right now is sickening. Watch the Daily Show clip if you haven't.

Every other issue is similarly confused. He hated the Bush tax cuts, now he loves them. NOBODY can tell you what he stands for right now, because it's an election year. Will he revert to who he was? Will he stay as he is now? Will he adopt some hybrid set of positions? Who knows? You'd do better to roll a die (or consult a poll...) if you want to know what he actually stands for right now. I can't tell you how HUGE a change that is.

This guy used to hate phony politicians. Now he's become one. He's hired Rove's protege AND the Bush adviser who put out the ugly rumors about McCain fathering a black child (that child was adopted). So much for family being "off limits" or his plan to run a "clean" campaign. Yeah, nobody with any sense thought it was ever going to *actually* be clean. But there's dirty and then there's hiring Rove's people.

I can't vote for McCain. He violated everything he once claimed to believe in for a shot at becoming President. I know someone will say "they all do that," but when I look at how far he's fallen, I know that he can't get up ever again.

This one is soooo cool:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card

You know, I don't care if they are right or left or nuts or both. But double standards are double standards and the right wing conservatives have a lot of issues where doublethink is required.

Disclaimer: I used to like McCain back in the 90s when I read some smart foreign policy stuff and when he was working for campaign finance reform and generally across party lines. But I am not sure if he would make a better president than Obama.

Aw man, that was hilarious.

We should set up some sort of exchange. Then you could watch the Beeb and I could watch The Daily Show without being redirected to Channel 4's DRMed rubbish. At least they're honest about how they feel about DRM.

Dream on. We all know it's true. Even Jon Stewart:

Barack Obama: He completes us!

That's downright hilarious. I really love the juxtaposition of images of the all the animals bowing down to the Lyin' King with the slobbering and drooling over The Messiah at Invesco field last week. The image of Barack Obama superimposed on top of the baby Simba in Disney's "The Lion King" is dead-on. Even the big baby-lion floppy ears match up perfectly with Obama's jug handles.

:-)

Best single line: "Barack Obama: ready enough-ish to lead!"

Even Bill Maher says about the news coverage Obama gets:

I think there is a problem, though, with the media gushing over him too much. I don't think he thinks that he's all that, but the media does. I mean, the coverage after, that I was watching, from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him.

I'm on the list as well, and share the same name as a certain famous comedian. I asked an agent what the problem was and was told "Oh, you've probably got the same name as someone." I even went so far as to go through TSA's grievance site https://trip.dhs.gov/ with no luck.

The weird thing is that it is different from airline to airline. On United, I can check in online, but my wife can't. On Frontier, I can't check in online but she can't.

I guess I should have taken HER name when I got married, and not the other way around.

There has been an abundance of McCain articles. Use the search function up top.

Now can someone tell me what reason is there to back him? I'm not crazy about Obama either, but fucking McCain? This guy gives the Daily Show and Colbert Report so much material to work with it isn't even funny(seriously he's Bush III except worse, if that's even possible).

Every time I see a McCain supporter, I think back to Orwell's notes on nationalism and sigh.

You can get "honest" answers from the Bush administration if you reverse whatever they say. For evidence of this, here's an excerpt from the Daily Show where they discuss the Russia-Georgia conflict.

Seriously.. WTF.

No, you misunderstood: You use this thing to get to and from your Cessna. The question is, can your Cessna hold an additional 250 lbs that bulky?

In that case, I'll take two!

Yeah, I think a 172 could carry 250 pounds okay, though it would be noticeably slower. I have to wonder: if you're going to fly your jetpack to the airport, what's the point of having a short-range, slow aircraft? :).

I guess it's kind of like that car that turns into a boat. It's all for the girlfriends.

Dishonest. She was talking about something someone else said.

You mean the picture that the Clinton campaign released?