Slashdot Mirror


The Push For Colbert's "Restoring Truthiness" Rally

jamie writes "A grassroots campaign has begun to get Stephen Colbert to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to counter Glenn Beck's recent 'Restoring Honor' event. The would-be rally has been dubbed 'Restoring Truthiness' and was inspired by a recent post on Reddit, where a young woman wondered if the only way to point out the absurdity of the Tea Party's rally would be if Colbert mirrored it with his own Colbert Nation.'"

703 comments

  1. Count me in by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he will resort to weeping publicly over his concern for our great Republic, I will show up and offer him a kleenex. It's only decent.

    1. Re:Count me in by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Knock what you want, but Beck must be doing something right. Now everyone wants to hold a rally...

    2. Re:Count me in by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, in case you needed more of a reason, the proposed date is 10/10/10... Are you thinking what I'm thinking? 101010 in binary=42 in decimal. The answer is right in front of us!

    3. Re:Count me in by humphrm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, Beck was the first one to think to hold a rally, and now everyone else is just mimicking Beck.

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    4. Re:Count me in by mark72005 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It was sad enough to see Beck's shameless self promotion, let alone to now see Colbert's cynical copycatting of shameless self-promotion

    5. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was sad enough to see Beck's shameless self promotion, let alone to now see Colbert's cynical copycatting of shameless self-promotion

      Haver you never seen Colbert's show?

    6. Re:Count me in by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Colbert's entire shtick is parodying shamelessly self promoting pundits like "Papa Bear" O'Reilly and Beck.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Count me in by space_jake · · Score: 1

      Rally, Blaze, I'm not sure I want what is coming next.

    8. Re:Count me in by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, the Nation of Islam and the Million Man March did it first, then the Promise Keepers did it, now it's goddamned political theatre.

    9. Re:Count me in by LaRainette · · Score: 2, Informative

      No he hasn't.
      OR he has a very keen and subtle sens of sarcasm.

    10. Re:Count me in by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the Nation of Islam and the Million Man March did it first

      It goes back longer than that. Hell, even the crowds that went to see MLK Jr weren't the first to organize a protest or march at the National Mall.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:Count me in by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Funny

      But that's for the British convention of dd/mm/yy. What happens if you read October 10th with mm/dd/yy?

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    12. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, I can think of at least one person who held a rally on the steps of the Lincoln memorial before the Million Man March.....

    13. Re:Count me in by magnusrex1280 · · Score: 1

      It's always been political theatre.

    14. Re:Count me in by alta · · Score: 2, Funny

      It goes back longer than that. Jesus was pretty good at holding a rally. And before him, Moses could rally the troops and get them to march through the freakin desert for years! Damn, noah could even rally the animals!

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    15. Re:Count me in by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know about MLK, but I was talking about more recent, like in the lifetimes of most /.ers and myself.

      Besides, I didn't want to equate Beck with MLK or with other giant marches like March on Washington

      Million man, Promise Keepers are more in line with Beck's motives

    16. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be a fantastic day for our nation. Ubuntu Maverick, baby!

    17. Re:Count me in by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jesus and Moses were at the National Mall?

      I've never read the Book of Mormon, but I don't think the National Mall makes an appearance in it, but Jesus is here in the New World.

    18. Re:Count me in by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      Million man, Promise Keepers are more in line with Beck's motives

      Shameless self-promotion? :)

      FWIW, I think Beck's motives are purely personal. I do honestly believe that the organizers of both the Million Man March and Promise Keepers actually wanted to effect change with their marches (though self-aggrandizement likely played a role too). I don't believe Beck actually honestly believes the shit he spews.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    19. Re:Count me in by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

      Dude - thats my birthday this year! My birthday is the meaning of life! Makes me feel important :)

      --
      William George
    20. Re:Count me in by gman003 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's the same. October 10 is 10/10 no matter which way you arrange it. Same for January 1, February 2, March 3, April 4, etc.

    21. Re:Count me in by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think Glenn Beck is a hyper-active ex junkie who is in it to make a ton of money while spewing insanity.

      I thin Glenn Beck is crazy enough to believe himself.

      There was alot of shameless self-promotion in the motivation of both Louis Farrakhan and Bill McCartney, and I think both were focused on dividing rather than uniting. Same for Beck.

    22. Re:Count me in by rubicelli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *whoosh*

    23. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thus proving that 42 = 24.

    24. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :)

    25. Re:Count me in by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wooossshhhh....

      I'm pretty sure the poster above you was making a joke....

      --
      William George
    26. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you've found the question!!

      "When will all truthiness be revealed to the world!!" - 42 MOFO!!!

    27. Re:Count me in by bigredradio · · Score: 1

      The wooshing sound you just heard was the joke going over your head.

    28. Re:Count me in by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thin Glenn Beck is crazy enough to believe himself.

      That's scary... it would take some special kind of crazy for that to be true.

      I don't think he really buys it... I think he's like a modern-day Joseph Smith... or at least wants to be.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    29. Re:Count me in by AkiraRoberts · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only this year? Seriously neat trick.

      --
      words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
    30. Re:Count me in by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

      "Colbert" is in fact a persona not a real person, that is the personality on screen is not as he is in real life. The whole thing is a sarcastic cynical look at Fox News talk shows and other self important talking heads. That's why some people think it's funny, others (without a sense of humor) are offended.

      --
      6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    31. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same. October 10 is 10/10 no matter which way you arrange it. Same for January 1, February 2, March 3, April 4, etc.

      whoosh

    32. Re:Count me in by tool462 · · Score: 1

      He's the Apple of political discourse! Quick, somebody get him a turtle neck!

    33. Re:Count me in by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Dude has a history of drug abuse, hell he might be using again. That sort of thing worked for Hitler, meglomania, an echo chamber of your are right and dope.

      Yea, I Godwined Beck.

    34. Re:Count me in by JM78 · · Score: 1, Troll

      And your point is... what exactly?

      His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.

      --
      I am Jack's smirking revenge.
    35. Re:Count me in by KarrdeSW · · Score: 1

      No, the Nation of Islam and the Million Man March did it first

      It goes back longer than that. Hell, even the crowds that went to see MLK Jr weren't the first to organize a protest or march at the National Mall.

      Coxey's Army

    36. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Google has assimilated the additional information.

      Any other personal information you would like to share?

    37. Re:Count me in by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      But he's doing it all wrong. There's only one waypoint and I don't think many people will bring their cars. Some rally that is!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    38. Re:Count me in by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Yes. Those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder are often able to suck in large numbers of people to their "cause", for a while. Then, when the inevitable happens and people start to realize the empty reality, things start to get ugly. I truly don't know if Beck is really the loopy narcissist that he appears to be or if he is just a master at manipulating gullible fools, but either way, the end result will be the same.

    39. Re:Count me in by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Only this year? Seriously neat trick.

      Yeah its a neat trick that 2010 only happens in 2010. Now if only they can manage to make it to 2110, they can be the meaning of life again.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    40. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that neat - last years was 10/10/09 and next years will be 10/10/11, so it really only could be on 10/10/10 this year.

      *unless of course GP is over 100 years old :O

    41. Re:Count me in by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yea, I Godwined Beck.

      Does it even count on someone who has an established history of playing video clips of the nazis when talking about his political opponents?

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    42. Re:Count me in by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      It's Nazis all the way down.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    43. Re:Count me in by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the part about Colbert I always found so awesome...through parody, he speaks more truth than those with a "serious" agenda.

      Of course, nothing is funnier than someone who thinks Colbert is serious. My friend's mom is a die hard conservative, and she thought Colbert was serious about everything he did (taking it as Comedy Central's counterpoint to The Daily Show, in the interest of being balanced.) I showed her clips of Colbert getting his start on The Daily Show, and of him talking politics outside of his "Colbert" character.

      Her head exploded.

    44. Re:Count me in by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was responding to this:

      It was sad enough to see Beck's shameless self promotion, let alone to now see Colbert's cynical copycatting of shameless self-promotion

      I felt it was pretty obvious what my point was. It is not sad to see Colbert's 'cynical copycatting of shameless self promotion,' because that is what Colbert does, and has always done, and it's funny.

      It seems you have mistaken what I wrote to mean that I support Beck or O'Reilly. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    45. Re:Count me in by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      10/10/10 can only happen once a century...

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    46. Re:Count me in by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I think Glenn Beck is a hyper-active ex junkie who is in it to make a ton of money while spewing insanity.

      In some of his more lucid moments, he's admitted he's an entertainer first and shouldn't be taken seriously. Then he does things like this.
      I think he's more shrewd than many in the middle will give him credit for and he just can't be trusted to say what he really feels.

    47. Re:Count me in by ePhil_One · · Score: 2, Funny

      But that's for the British convention of dd/mm/yy. What happens if you read October 10th with mm/dd/yy?

      I need my dates machine sortable. What happens if I use yy/mm/dd?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    48. Re:Count me in by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Funny

      My God, it's windy in here.

    49. Re:Count me in by Surt · · Score: 1

      I think he's a performer who wants to make $$$, and has found his path. The mall appearance is promotion for his next book.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    50. Re:Count me in by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I think he's a performer who wants to make $$$, and has found his path.

      Just like Joseph Smith, and countless other charlatans, con-men, and demagogues through the ages.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    51. Re:Count me in by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Jesus and Moses were at the National Mall?

      I hear it depends on whether you ask the Mormons. ~

    52. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure most people are only born once.... The real trick is posting to /. while still in the womb.

    53. Re:Count me in by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Don't think you're special... I'm banking on another Julius and Augustus to come along in the next couple of years, then I'll get my 13/13/13 :P

    54. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I was thinking fertilizer. Besides, the answer is 47 now; Ron Moore adjusted it for inflation.

    55. Re:Count me in by AkiraRoberts · · Score: 1

      Good point. I am, apparently, stupid. Why on earth am I modded higher than you?

      --
      words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
    56. Re:Count me in by arcsimm · · Score: 1

      But what is it in base-13? That's the *real* question.

    57. Re:Count me in by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Colbert" is in fact a persona not a real person,

      and the single best part of this is the Bush Administrations complete idoicy when they booked him for the White House Correspondents Dinner.

      That was pure gold.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    58. Re:Count me in by jpapon · · Score: 1

      It's a trap!

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    59. Re:Count me in by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I seem to remember some other guy holding a rally at the Lincoln Memorial before Beck, went over really big too IIRC.

      Something about him having a dream or something like that.

    60. Re:Count me in by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Nope, it looks like Jesus was down in the land of Iguanas.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Book_of_Mormon_Lands_and_Sites2.jpg

    61. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And your point is... what exactly?

      His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.

      Festering mouths? Really? Why the hatred? I mean, it's OK to disagree on the subject matter, but do you really need to literally HATE those with a different perspective on life? I believe yours and nearly every other post here, are proof that it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left.

      So it's true. The left does project.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    62. Re:Count me in by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

      It's the answer to life, the universe and everything.

    63. Re:Count me in by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Knock what you want, but Hitler must be doing something right. Now everyone wants to burn Jews.

    64. Re:Count me in by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Are you serious or is this some sort of joke you know like some sort of Reddit joke account? I believe they have a guy that explains obvious jokes. Are you cutting in on his territory?

    65. Re:Count me in by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the result must then be 24.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    66. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Colbert" is in fact a persona not a real person, that is the personality on screen is not as he is in real life. The whole thing is a sarcastic cynical look at Fox News talk shows and other self important talking heads. That's why some people think it's funny, others (without a sense of humor) are offended.

      I don't find him funny. It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, it's that I no longer find a joke funny after hearing it over and over and over and over again. We get it. Colbert thinks Bill O'Reilly and what he believes are conservative talk show hosts are ignorant, racist, bigoted, self serving, pompous asses. I got it in the first ten minutes the very first time I saw his show. After that, it's been the predictable telling of the same joke over and over and over again.

      As an example, compare that to South Park. In South Park, you have Ben Afleck with an ass-face, Tom Cruize packing fudge and won't come out of the closet, Mel Gibson smearing poo all over the walls, Cartman as Beck, Al Gore as himself warning us all about man-bear-pig, Scientologists as frauds, Jesus looking at porn and Mohammed in a pedo-bear costume. They piss off everyone. Even Stewart, who also spends much of his time roasting the right, will go after the occasional liberal on extremely rare occasion.

      "Colbert" is nothing more than a repetitive constant bashing of O'Reilly via parody and it gets old really, really, really fast.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    67. Re:Count me in by jemtallon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interesting. Why do you think this "left" and "right" exist? And assuming they do, why do you feel this "left" group all agree so uniformly with a couple slashdotters? Do they have a newsletter I've yet to subscribe to? I eagerly await your wisdom. Much love, Jem

    68. Re:Count me in by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      It's the same. October 10, 2010 is 10/10/10 no matter which way you arrange it. Same for January 1, February 2, March 3, April 4, etc.

      (we can has redundant thread of previous redundant thread?)

      (do we get to whoosh the whooshers for whooshing obvious whooshbait?)

    69. Re:Count me in by Romancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cannot contain the laughter...

      That was the perfect Colbert immitation of cyclical fallacy based arguments!

      Build a strawman, name it hatred, claim "literal" hatred, denounce the made up statement, over-generalize and claim as proof.
      The last line though, was absolute perfection. Projecting your own hatred in a statement about projection.

      Classic Colbert.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    70. Re:Count me in by skyyblueandblack · · Score: 1

      Yes, and like Mister Stewart, the difference is that he's SUPPOSED to be a parody. Or did you not catch that episode of Crossfire several years back? "What is WRONG with you people??"

    71. Re:Count me in by tanderson92 · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent up. I haven't seen something more insightful on slashdot in a while.

    72. Re:Count me in by spun · · Score: 1

      You're the second person to be confused by my statement. Read the person I was responding to. You have basically repeated my point back to me, as if I did not understand what I was saying, or saying the exact opposite.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    73. Re:Count me in by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but Colbert and others continue to tell us all that nothing's wrong

      Jon Stewart and Colbert are constantly talking about the budget problems lately...they both do many things, but acting like nothing is wrong certainly isn't one of them.

    74. Re:Count me in by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Best Thing Ever was when some Bush-administration lackey took Colbert seriously enough to invite him to speak at the 2006 White House Correspondents' dinner.

      That speech made Colbert forever one of my personal heroes.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    75. Re:Count me in by Tynin · · Score: 1

      +1 Hilarious. Would laugh again!!!

    76. Re:Count me in by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno. I think Beck doesn't necessarily believe what he says, but he /does/ believe (not without justification) that his viewers are morons who will believe whatever he tells them, as long as he includes the magic incantation to tell them to do their own research.

      The man's *very* well paid to spread conservative propaganda.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    77. Re:Count me in by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I'm a bit puzzled why Beck catches so much crap lately. I'm not an avid follower, but I've watched him back when he was on CNN Headline News....and some on Fox.

      I gotta say...he seems to hit many things on the head, or at the very least, brings up some very interesting questions that really should be asked, both during the Bush administration, and the current Obama one.

      Sure, the goofy crying stuff...that's lame, but I do listen to some things he says, and it does prompt serious thought in my head on what's going down and where our nation is heading.

      I'm not affiliated with any party...I think the RepubloCrats are pretty much the same corporate owned entities that use different divisive issues to split the crowd their way. The Tea Party people? Well, the basic grassroots ideas they have about moving our government back to a more constitutionally strict form, I'm all for that. Sure, they have some fringe nuts out there too trying to join in, but I like some of the general ideas they have, like getting our government to act more in line with the enumerated powers they are granted in the constitution.

      It seems that anyone outside the formal Dem or Rep...is out to catch a world of hate these days, easily seen on /. like any other media, but really....isn't it about time to at least talk about where we want the US to go outside of those in power inside the Beltway?

      Why isn't the mainstream media as suspicious and questioning of whomever is in office..as they seemed to do in the past? These days...very few people out there in the media do anything but seemingly recite off the press sheets the whitehouse or congressional offices give them.

      At least with Beck...well, he points fingers and asks some questions that really merit some thought.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    78. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, because Beck made up the idea, it wasn't like he was just mimicking Martin Luther King Jr. or anything like that.

    79. Re:Count me in by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Now if only they can manage to make it to 2110, they can be the meaning of life again."

      Nah...I'd rather see 2112 , then we can assume control....we have assumed control....we have assumed control.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    80. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry. But do Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have some kind of dental infection that I'm not aware of? No? Then the "festering mouths" comment is a personal attack, an insult not to refute or forward arguments, but to insult these men personally.

      So, yeah, that is what I'd call a hateful attack, or in more general terms, an attack based on hate. So, if it really was a hateful personal attack, then it was not a strawman, which is what your entire point was based on.

      Here, let me try to say it in simpler terms so maybe you might understand:

      Strange that every time I see an argument against the Tea Party or conservatives in general, it is almost always based on how hateful conservatives are. Yet, here are 300 comments, nearly all of which are based on personal attacks and insults.

      So, I ask again, project much?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    81. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jimmy Buffett, right?

      Fuckin' A, I LOVE that song!

    82. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you cannot see Colbert for the satire that it is really helps explain things about you, Troll64.

    83. Re:Count me in by randizzle3000 · · Score: 1

      Haha better than all the whoosh responses!

    84. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      > I don't find him funny. It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, it's that I no longer find a joke funny after hearing it over and over and > over and over again. We get it. Colbert thinks Bill O'Reilly and what he believes are conservative talk show hosts are ignorant, racist,
      > bigoted, self serving, pompous asses. I got it in the first ten minutes the very first time I saw his show. After that, it's been the
      > predictable telling of the same joke over and over and over again.

      yeah, I expected this sentiment, and it's pretty obvious that you were offended with the stripe of this show, the political bent, and tuned out.

      Which is too bad, because when Colbert gets going, he gets going, and his range is far more versatile than you let up above..

      For example, here was his take on the supreme court case to strike down restrictions on corporate spending - 'let freedom ka-ching':

      http://vodpod.com/watch/2198494-colbert-the-word-let-freedom-ka-ching

      Extremely incisive, informative, and yes, funny. Or his take on the BP oil spill..

      http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-the-colbert-report-put-the-cursed-monkey-paw-down-8414401.html

      I'd say that in both cases he's dead on accurate, and dead on clever. It stays fresh precisely because of the creativity and range; if it were what you say, it would have died off long ago.

      Ed

    85. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now the country is so far in debt, it's doubtful we'll ever be able to pay it back

      The US government has the power to create as many US dollars as it wants by simply changing numbers stored in a database. Since the government's debt is denominated in US dollars, it will never be forced to default.

      Alternatively, if you care about measures like debt to GDP ratio: current budget forecasts have debt leveling off at around 100% of GDP over the next few years, which is hardly catastrophic given that it has been at 120% of GDP in the past with no disaster. Japan's debt has been well over 100% of GDP for more than a decade, yet Japan hasn't defaulted.

    86. Re:Count me in by Grapplebeam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Spoiler alert for Colbert's show: His show is CONSTANT shameless self-promotion. And it actually is shameless, rather than the incorrect usage that really means shameful. He also has the Captain America shield, so he's plot-device invincible.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    87. Re:Count me in by GunJah · · Score: 1

      And your point is... what exactly?

      His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.

      Festering mouths? Really? Why the hatred?

      Festering mouth is right, and its not hatred. Any Projection is on your part.
      If I see someone walking around with a festering wound for a mouth I don't hate them, but I sure am concerned that something dangerously ungood is happening.

    88. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C64_love consistently makes posts that indicate he lives in a reality just a little bit different from the rest of us. Not quite full-blown kookville, but there is clearly a marble deficit in his hometown. Fortunately (or not), his username is unique enough that his posts really stand out - I can't think of a single other user on slashdot with such strong brand recognition for being loopy. Circletimessquare comes to mind as the filipino fascist, but his blind spots aren't quite so big, at least on his good days they aren't.

    89. Re:Count me in by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      Now we just have to worry about what the question is!

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    90. Re:Count me in by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      (taking it as Comedy Central's counterpoint to The Daily Show, in the interest of being balanced.)

      It is the counterpoint to The Daily Show, in a sense.

      One shows stupidity via direct logical appeal, the other shows it by taking the ideas to their logical extreme.

    91. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And your point is... what exactly?

      His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.

      Festering mouths? Really? Why the hatred?

      Festering mouth is right, and its not hatred. Any Projection is on your part.
      If I see someone walking around with a festering wound for a mouth I don't hate them, but I sure am concerned that something dangerously ungood is happening.

      No, of course you don't hate them. You just call their mouth a "festering wound" and claim that their actions can only lead to "something dangerously ungood", but no hatred at all there.

      Of course, these people are only guilty of have a point of view that is different than your own and as we all know, anyone that does not agree with you has a "festering wound" for a mouth.

      Yeah. No personal attacks there. Only pure fact and logic. When someone disagrees with you, they are obviously scum of the earth with no hope of completing anything worth while. Seriously, how could I possibly refute the "festering mouth" argument? It's a plain to see as the Chewbacca defense and equally unrefutable.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    92. Re:Count me in by bonch · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised at the angry rhetoric in the submission. Why is the rally something that needs to be "countered?" What "absurdity" is there in citizens holding a rally? Are some Democrats really that intolerant of opposing viewpoints that they can't accept the existence of a grassroots effort that they disagree with, especially when they used grassroots efforts of their own to get Obama elected?

      As time goes on, I'm beginning to think Glenn Beck is a purposeful tool to distract Democrats into going crazy over him while the Republicans stay on message and sweep the midterms. I've never seen such a harmless blowhard get so much attention for no reason. Getting a bunch of hipster-douchebag Colbert fans out to counter Glenn Beck would just draw even more attention to Glenn Beck. Why not just disregard him if you don't like him?

      I had this same reaction once when reading opinions from liberal acquaintances who hated Rush Limbaugh and told me how "dangerous" he was. Then I'd turn on his show during the day and just hear a radio guy ranting in favor smaller government and lower taxes. That's the dangerous guy they're going crazy over? It's as if there's this nutty urge by liberals to completely eradicate any opposition to their viewpoints.

    93. Re:Count me in by bonch · · Score: 1

      Al Sharpton's rally was in response to Beck's, and now Colbert fans are wanting a rally in response to Beck's, so yeah, people are mimicking Beck.

    94. Re:Count me in by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So your comparing a show on Comedy Central to a show on a cable news TV channel?

      The big difference is - yes both are showmen, but Glen takes it a step further by genuinely convincing his viewers that the scary stuff he reveals on his show is in fact true (and if you don't believe me - ask one of his many followers).

    95. Re:Count me in by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      One would need to watch less than a minute of political news to realize that not only do "left" and "right" exist, but that politicians who aren't in either group are studied by cryptozoologists. The heart of modern American politics is the business of moving voters, blocs and districts from one side to the other. With only two options, it is a zero sum game. Accordingly, demonizing the opposition is effective as proposing solutions, while being significantly easier.

      The scarcity of independent view points is self-perpetuating, because all useful discussion is overshadowed by the mindless jockeying of "left" and "right" for first place. In a country where politics is not concerned with meaningful policies, who can blame voters for supporting the least repugnant of "left" or "right" and being otherwise entirely disinterested?

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    96. Re:Count me in by bonch · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that Colbert's humor is referred to as "truth" even though he only parodies one side. Same with the Daily Show--they'll mock conservatives for their policies but only mock liberals for their looks, voices, or gaffes. Seeing people completely ignore bias is odd to me.

    97. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you in the Outer Banks by any chance? Must be due to Hurricane Earl...

    98. Re:Count me in by markhahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      South Part is all about pricking the pretentious, as outrageously as possible. Colbert does that too, but he's mainly about the politics, not the politicians. so yeah, Colbert isn't much fun if you don't actually care about politics. and why is it that you don't care about politics?

    99. Re:Count me in by dangitman · · Score: 1

      If he will resort to weeping publicly over his concern for our great Republic, I will show up and offer him a kleenex. It's only decent.

      I'd be happy just to see him draw Snoopy.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    100. Re:Count me in by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Not only do I doubt you know who stephen colbert even is. You didnt read the article or even the summary, where this is a petition to get Stephen Colbert to hold a rally.

      Back under your rock now.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    101. Re:Count me in by Delarth799 · · Score: 1

      That joke didn't just fly over your head, it flew miles over your head.

    102. Re:Count me in by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Rally, Blaze, I'm not sure I want what is coming next.

      Blaze? it's actually hempfest?

      sweet!!!

      --
      Be seeing you...
    103. Re:Count me in by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      LOL I read your comment as "The Book of Nomnomnom" and thought, "Oh, that guy with that sig is now chewing in his posts as well?" (And, Jesus in the New World is only present on waffles. And as a child of Mexicans, although they pronounce it "Hey! Zeus!", which I suppose is just another mythology reference, those crafty Mexicans.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    104. Re:Count me in by Romancer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suggest you read over your comment again and see if you can spot the hate in your own posts before commenting again. You are making it too easy to show what the problem is.

      Here's the wiki:
      A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

      Here's the specific types:
      1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
      2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context - i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
      3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
      4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
      5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

      Without asking for details on why the poster used an adjective that's not a completely factual representation of "some kind of dental infection" you go off about how he/she has committed "what I'd call a hateful attack" and use that logic to condemn a group of people by generalizing a post or posts into a representation of the group which you disparage in a conclusion of "proof that it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left." Finally using the name calling that you are supposedly denouncing.

      Try reading this:

      Strange that every time I see an argument against (group A), it is almost always based on how hateful (Group A) is.

      See any similarities between your own (generalized) statement and what you are trying to prove in your posts?

      By your own words you were participating and instigating that process. You based your post on how hateful a group is and used an example of someone using an adjective to give visual power to their opinion without asking or participating in a discussion based on facts, You purposly misconstrue it to suit your own hatefull indignation.

      Now you're in a bad spot because you have to avoid the recursion of having the original poster and yourself on the same path of having called the other side names. To leave your straw man misrepresentation a straight example: Do you think that by describing shows or people on one side as having "festering mouth(s)" is more accurately about claiming that they had a "dental infection" or that they were "spouting disease", as in hate or fear mongering? Now compare that to your own finger pointing and name calling and see how much better you and your side are for not spreading hatred without waiting for or wanting the facts or a discussion thereof.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    105. Re: Count me in by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I thin Glenn Beck is crazy enough to believe himself.

      I don't think he really buys it... I think he's like a modern-day Joseph Smith... or at least wants to be.

      Your .sig explains Bek best: "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..."

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    106. Re: Count me in by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The Best Thing Ever was when some Bush-administration lackey took Colbert seriously enough to invite him to speak at the 2006 White House Correspondents' dinner.

      I liked it when he had Dick Cheney on for an interview about his (then) new book, and held up a copy of the book with a huge "35% Off" sticker on the cover throughout most of the interview.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    107. Re: Count me in by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Same with the Daily Show--they'll mock conservatives for their policies

      Policies, plural?

      Ten years ago they had "bomb Iraq" and "cut taxes on the rich" as the twin pillars of their platform, but since 2003 they've been down to one.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    108. Re:Count me in by cvd6262 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Best Thing Ever was when some Bush-administration lackey took Colbert seriously enough to invite him to speak at the 2006 White House Correspondents' dinner.

      That speech made Colbert forever one of my personal heroes.

      You might want to brush up on the history of the White House Correspondents' Association's dinner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Correspondents'_Association . Yakov Smirnoff was the speaker in 1988.

      The content of Colbert's speech may have surprised some, but taking him "seriously" would have disqualified him from being considered as the speaker.

      --

      I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    109. Re:Count me in by mdda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Default isn't a problem, since the US can simply print money : TRUE

      Holders of US currency (eg: most US citizens) won't care : FALSE

      If the US prints money, then Chinese exports get more expensive, and the dollars in your bank account become worth less and less. i.e. you get poorer (because you experience inflation). Printing money = a tax that no-one focusses on. If the dollar falls by 10% (say) then every piece of income, every piece of capital, becomes worth 10% less.

      OTOH, if you own a house (a fixed asset) and pay a mortgage (you owe dollars, not own dollars) then inflation is a win for you.

    110. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, Colbert is about poking fun at CONSERVATIVE politics. That's why it gets old while South Park and even The Daily Show remain fresh. They spread it around.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    111. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

      I suggest you read over your comment again and see if you can spot the hate in your own posts before commenting again. You are making it too easy to show what the problem is.

      Here's the wiki:
      A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. ...

      Tell you what, sparky. Why don't you go back to the OP's post and tell me:
      1) how I misrepresented it
      2) how I tried to refute it

      I'll even help you out. Here is the OP:

      And your point is... what exactly?

      His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.

      His argument is that Colbert is funnier and more truthful than O'Reilly or Beck, right? Where did I misrepresent that and attempt to refute the misrepresentation? I mean, aren't those the necessary requirements for a strawman attack?

      No, my point was not to refute his argument. My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument. You try to portray them as racists or idiots in an attempt to strip them, and therefor their argument, of any credibility.

      Which takes me to my next point, projection. See, that's where you blame others of the crime you are guilty of. Like when you misrepresent someone's argument, claim it's a strawman and then try to shoot it down based on your assumption that your opponent's argument is a strawman. See, that's projection because you are making a strawman argument all while accusing your opponent of doing so.

      Without asking for details on why the poster used an adjective that's not a completely factual representation of "some kind of dental infection" you go off about how he/she has committed "what I'd call a hateful attack" and use that logic to condemn a group of people by generalizing a post or posts into a representation of the group which you disparage in a conclusion of "proof that it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left." Finally using the name calling that you are supposedly denouncing.

      The OP was an example. Here are some more, all from this thread:

      Dude has a history of drug abuse, hell he might be using again. That sort of thing worked for Hitler, meglomania, an echo chamber of your are right and dope.

      I think Beck doesn't necessarily believe what he says, but he /does/ believe (not without justification) that his viewers are morons who will believe whatever he tells them, as long as he includes the magic incantation to tell them to do their own research.

      It's Nazis all the way down.

      Just like Joseph Smith, and countless other charlatans, con-men, and demagogues through the ages.

      Yes. Those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder are often able to suck in large numbers of people to their "cause", for a while.

      I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. ...than bigotry, ignorance, self aggrandization, and chalk boards? Yes, yes it is. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

      Teabaggers are unable to detect or comprehend subtlety and nuance.

      Strange. I don't see a single argument in the entire thread that extols the virtues of a powerful, federal government. Nowhere do I see anyone even attempt to refute Beck's current rally call of "smaller government".

      Nope, it's all about how big of an idiot Beck and his followers are. Other sites stick to how Beck and anyone who opposes President Obama is a

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    112. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Holy crap! Don't know how I missed this one:

      Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards. We also have the diabolically evil faction, Wall Street evil, coal mining evil, big oil evil, the military industrial evil complex.

      Glen Beck's popularity spans all sorts of crazy, retarded and evil.

      Wow!!!! and we're the party of hate!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    113. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, like when stewart pointed out how dick cheney said "reagan proved deficits don't matter". ppl really need to understand what money is, how it gets created, why we can vote for our eleted reps to create it debt-free (like japan and the first republican president, lincoln), and why inflation is not much of a concern as long as we keep innovation going.

      As Beck says, do your own research! Don't let pop economists on TV or in congress spoon-feed you their models that are less predictive than climate change ones.

    114. Re:Count me in by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Well, no. If the apparatchik had been doing his homework (or if he'd even watched the show /once/), he'd not have picked Colbert. I mean, I really don't think Smirnoff mercilessly mocked Reagan in quite the predictable way Colbert did Bush the Lesser.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    115. Re:Count me in by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Ahh, don't deflate his reality with the facts. The last thing we want is unhinged idiots who just realized their ideology is based mostly on a fabrication running lose.

    116. Re:Count me in by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why are you attempting to argue with someone who is defending the art of personal attacks instead of attacking the points they deem invalid. I mean it's sort of sounds like they are simply going to ignore any logic of facts thrown in their face and just claim you are ugly or something as if it is some valid retort to your point outside of third grade playground debate.

    117. Re:Count me in by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you know what the White House Correspondents dinner is?

      If you did, I don't think you would have made that statement or thought it was a good part or anything. Unless you think people like Lewis Black is a die hard conservative or something, as the Bush administration had him there before Colbert.

    118. Re:Count me in by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      If he were in it to make a ton of money why would he cancel a seven figure advertising contract with GM?

      His philosophy is remarkably unchanged, he has been a heavy critic of both the Bush administration and the Obama administration (indeed, that's probably why he wasn't popular during the Bush administration, he was saying the things no one else would against Bush). If you have been listening to him for the last decade as I have there is absolutely no reason to believe he just says stuff because it's self-promoting, he says it because he does believe it's true. If he holds an event that's non-political then, surprise, it's going to be non-political.

      He says he doesn't come to the conclusions he does because it's popular or because it makes sense, but because there is no better explanation.

    119. Re:Count me in by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      What points has he made that are coherent?

      Oh yes, socialism is EVIL, no one in the Teabagger movement is in favor of getting rid of the oldest and most widespread socialist programs in the US. Social Security, the Montgomery GI Bill or Farm subsidies.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_political_agenda

      Three of the agenda items would increase the size of the Federal Government and add to more bureaucracy.

      As for Beck himself, he is in it to spin things up and make a ton of money, country be damned.

      In a 2010 interview in Forbes, Beck asserted that his business was not political, but is an entertainment company: "I could give a flying crap about the political process," continuing on to say that Mercury Radio Arts, his production company, is "an entertainment company"

    120. Re:Count me in by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "If he were in it to make a ton of money why would he cancel a seven figure advertising contract with GM?"

      Because he is a damned drug addict lunatic. High people and religious fanatics sometimes make decision that go against common sense.

    121. Re:Count me in by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      "Colbert" is in fact a persona not a real person, that is the personality on screen is not as he is in real life. The whole thing is a sarcastic cynical look at Fox News talk shows and other self important talking heads. That's why some people think it's funny, others (without a sense of humor) are offended.

      True, but "Colbert" on the other hand is a real person and not a persona. I think the real person "Colbert" is genius, and the persona "Colbert" is a great way of showing how idiotic the gang at Fox is.

    122. Re:Count me in by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      So all drug addicts are insane people with no value to the world and they can't ever be recovered and make a positive contribution. Nice, thanks for your stereotyping, maybe next time you can stop judging people because they happen to have a different opinion than you.

      For something you dismiss as a decision that goes against common sense his arguments are awfully coherent over time. Has it occurred to you that maybe he just, how does he put it, "say what you mean and mean what you say?" "There are some things I believe I shall never say but I shall never say the things I do not believe" "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Do you disagree with these statements? Are they really the quotes of a "religious fanatic" and "drug addict lunatic?"

      Hm?

    123. Re:Count me in by ceraphis · · Score: 1

      Even if Beck has precious few things to say that have some merit, the absurdity and idiocy of the majority of what he says completely destroys any credibility he could possibly have. It's beyond jaw-dropping some of his talking points, and it scares the living daylights out of me when I consider that there are people who actually agree with some of the more insane thoughts he pushes on national television.

    124. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be Decimust 8th, sir.

    125. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colbert really has grabbed the tiger by the tail.

      I wonder if we wakes up in a sweat some nights realising that
      someday his most ardent fans might actually cotton on to what
      he's doing ...

      Fear no-one more than a lover scorned ...

    126. Re:Count me in by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Festering mouths" refers to the bullshit they spew. The clear lies, the hatred, everything. There's a difference between having a go at public figures who incite hate, and the hate those people spew towards undeserving people.

    127. Re:Count me in by wickedskaman · · Score: 1
      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    128. Re:Count me in by MrHyd3 · · Score: 0

      Agreed, Beck pimps everything, foot fungus cures, safes, etc....

      --
      -------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
    129. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus you're dense. He pointed it out in the previous post.

      To leave your straw man misrepresentation a straight example: Do you think that by describing shows or people on one side as having "festering mouth(s)" is more accurately about claiming that they had a "dental infection" or that they were "spouting disease", as in hate or fear mongering?

      You're a hippocrite, calling in all sorts of other crap to defend your ignorant rants and misguided point about how the other side is so hateful. You're the one spouting all sorts of hateful crap. Shut up and read what you're typing.

      His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.

      His argument is that Colbert is funnier and more truthful than O'Reilly or Beck, right? Where did I misrepresent that and attempt to refute the misrepresentation?

      You called him out on a hateful argument and didn't try and refute any actual point that he was making, no comparison of truthful vs untruthful statements by either Colbert or Bill/Glen, you just started calling him names and blaming the whole party for hate speach. you never actually hade an opposing statement to his, you focused entirely on your made up hate theory and that's a strawman attack. Where you ignore the other persons actual position where he was comparing the humor and truthfulness of one person to another. You never get it do you? That you are doing the same shit you're calling others out on.

      Here's a great example:

      No, my point was not to refute his argument. My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument. You try to portray them as racists or idiots in an attempt to strip them, and therefor their argument, of any credibility.

      You admit that you aren't even trying to refute his argument itself but go after the person with attacks claiming that they are the hatemongers. DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR STATEMENT? You say: "My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument." Do you even get it that YOU were doing that. I mean for Christs sake you have the two sentences right next to eachother!

      Stop wasting peoples time if you're not even going to hold yourself up to the standards you preach when you're arguing that others are projecting and using fallacy based arguments. You're statements are documentedly filled with admissions of hate for other perspectives and you still can't admit that you are doing exactly what you are complaining about.

    130. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he speaks more truth"

      Is that like sleeping while half awake?

      Does that make the other serious party half asleep awake? Strange how the latter still comes off as more sensible.

      "nothing is funnier than someone who thinks Colbert is serious"

      "was serious about everything he did"

      So, he's serious sometimes, but not at others, and it's funny when you think someone thinks he's serious when he's actually being funny.

      And there's nothing funnier to you. At all. Hilarious.

      I watch Colbert. The act gets tiresome. Seems more fit to younger folks that don't take anything in their life seriously, except for themselves.

      So rally all you want. Glenn is the village idiot, but it's strange everyone bashes the tea party (which I'm not a part of, thankfully), when most of the time, people like you seem to be the same ilk but the version on the other side.

      Heh. You said DIE HARD conservative. Hilarious shit.

    131. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't your careful selection of posts, while ignoring the others commenting on the "conservative" position, also a strawman, i.e. the earlier one about a friend's die hard conservative mother?

      Oh, yeah, right, it is. Point 3 and point 5.

      Strange one does so by going after Beck too. It's innate to the position, isn't it?

      That's the problem with comedy and politics. One side thinks it's true and hilarious. The other side doesn't think it's funny at all and false. The middle throws up their hands and goes independent. Massive fail occurs. People think it's funny to continue the cycle.

      Much more pronounced than the cyclical straw man crap, with more pronounced impact.

      Hold your rally. I found the tea part rally or whatever silly. Yours will be more risky. If you have fewer show up, you've been shown up. If you have more, you'd better win the November elections.

    132. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're the one spouting all sorts of hateful crap.

      Where? Quote it or you are a liar!

      You called him out on a hateful argument and didn't try and refute any actual point that he was making, no comparison of truthful vs untruthful statements by either Colbert or Bill/Glen, you just started calling him names and blaming the whole party for hate speach.

      Right. I don't give a rat's ass about his "argument". I just used his post as an example of the hate coming from the left. Read my other post for more examples. I couldn't very well respond to all of them. That would be redundant. If that's not enough for you, google "hate sarah palin" or better yet, google "Bristol Palin is a whore" and see what comes up.

      You admit that you aren't even trying to refute his argument itself but go after the person with attacks claiming that they are the hatemongers. DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR STATEMENT?

      Did you? Read my last paragraph where I explain it again.

      You say: "My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument." Do you even get it that YOU were doing that.

      Again, show me the quote. Show me where I have hurled an insult toward anyone at all. If you can't back it up, you are a liar. Show me the insult or STFU.

      You're statements are documentedly filled with admissions of hate for other perspectives and you still can't admit that you are doing exactly what you are complaining about.

      Show it, or dare I say.... YOU ARE PROJECTING!!! You are accusing me of something your side is doing and offering no evidence. Show me the insult I've hurled at someone else. I've shown the insults coming from the left. Show me where I've thrown an insult.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    133. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first reply that started the whole thing.

      Where? Quote it or you are a liar!

      it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left.

      Again, show me the quote. Show me where I have hurled an insult toward anyone at all. If you can't back it up, you are a liar. Show me the insult or STFU.

      it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left.

      Show me where I've thrown an insult.

      it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left.

      You started by calling people on one side of a political divide hatemongers and accusing them of projecting their hate onto the other side. You proceeded to keep on pojecting your own hate by claiming the exact thing that you kept doing is bad.

      Can you even see it? Responding to one remark and calling a person or group hatemongers and then repeatedly defending your ability to do it but denying others the same right is hypocritical. You are just as guilty as anybody you have accused of calling people names and spreading your hateful ideas. So argue away with yourself, trying to ignore your own comments, the ones that started all the back and forth bickering between you people. But remember that when you say things like

      Right. I don't give a rat's ass about his "argument".

      you are then only attacking the people in the exact manner that you accuse them of doing. You're no better if you use straw man attacks and ignore the point of a statement like the amount of truth that comes out of whatever types of mouthes they have. The original point of the statement wasn't even considered in your crusade to prove you are better than others and that they are projecting their hate onto you. Think about what you're trying to accomplish by ignoring the actual points being discussed and only focusing on calling people names while you point at others and call foul for them doing the same. No actual discussion of the point trying to be made about the amount of truth between two people means you're not adding anything to the discussion. You could have taken the high road and asked for proof or offered a counter perspective but you choose to do the same thing that you are accusing others of doing. Just spreading hate. Calling a group of people hatemongers and then asking:

      Show me where I have hurled an insult toward anyone at all

      is missing the entire point even you seem bent on trying to make. You spread hate, not open discussion. You futher hate rather than dialog. I hope you can see it sometime if not now. I hope that you can look past the messenger and see yourself. Your own statements that contradict your claims.

    134. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You started by calling people on one side of a political divide hatemongers and accusing them of projecting their hate onto the other side. You proceeded to keep on pojecting your own hate by claiming the exact thing that you kept doing is bad.

      UM. No. That's my whole argument. Claiming someone is a hate monger doesn't make you a hate monger. What makes you a hate monger is saying things like

      Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards.

      That's a real comment from this very slashdot article. So you're saying that if I call that quote hateful, I'm being hateful? No. Sorry, not gonna fly. If that's the case, you just called my comments hateful, so that would make you hateful and prove my point. That's the rule you made right? Calling someone a hate monger makes you a hate monger. Well, Mr. Hate Monger, you just called me that.

      Try again.

      See, it's actually kinda funny. Back when the President sided with the black professor over the Cambridge PD after admitting that all he knew about the case was that the professor what black and the policeman was white. Since all he knew about the case was the race of the players involved, the only factor he could have made in his decision is race. Glenn Beck call the president a racist for this. The the shitstorm hit. All kinds of liberals came out of everywhere calling Beck a racist because he dared to call the president a racist.
      Really? So, if calling someone a racist makes one racist, didn't they just all call Glenn Beck racist. Shouldn't they all be racists for calling someone racist? (Likewise, didn't you call me a hatemonger for calling other hate mongers)

      you are then only attacking the people in the exact manner that you accuse them of doing.

      Um, no. I just showed where someone called Beck followers crazies, retards and evil with no proof to back it up. I said that people use hateful comments and personal attacks rather than attacking the substance of Beck's arguments and used the "crazy/retard/evil" comment as evidence. So when you say "exact manner" do you mean "by posting on slashdot"? I ask because that's the only thing in common.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    135. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't see it do you? You actually don't see that you are calling people names and accusing them of things that you are doing.

      You asked for an example of giving an insult to other people. I gave you one. You ignore the point that you did it and start focusing on other things. You can't admit that you asked 4 times for an example of something that you were accused of doing and then were given poof. You asked: "Show me where I've thrown an insult." I showed you and you ignore it. It's a fact and you can't handle it because you're so caught up in proving something about how much others are filled with hate.

      That's a real comment from this very slashdot article. So you're saying that if I call that quote hateful, I'm being hateful? No. Sorry, not gonna fly. If that's the case, you just called my comments hateful, so that would make you hateful and prove my point. That's the rule you made right? Calling someone a hate monger makes you a hate monger. Well, Mr. Hate Monger, you just called me that.

      Not even close to true.

      The previous posts weren't talking about other comments that you keep trying to bring in. You responded to a specific post that was making a claim about truth between Glen/Bill and Steve and you called one side hatemongers because that person used an adjective. Here's exactly where you start using strawman tactics, I'll spell it out.

      1: You take someones statement and change it to apply to another comment.
      "That's a real comment from this very slashdot article. So you're saying that if I call that quote hateful, I'm being hateful?"

      No, no one ever said that in this string of replies. Of course you can find other hateful comments from either side and start claiming that you are talking about them but you responded to a post and were called out on that comment, not others. So no, you weren't in fact called hateful for calling that other quote hateful. you brought it in to make a straw man attack. You just twisted the other peoples arguments to apply to something else and now you try and defeat that so you can seem correct to yourself. Straw man argument.

      "That's the rule you made right? Calling someone a hate monger makes you a hate monger."

      No, that's you making a statement that was created in your head since you have now ignored the facts.

      Calling a group of people hatemongers is an insult that you claimed you never gave. That was your question, that was the answer, and this is you ignoring the fact that you were incorrect.

      You want to start generalizing then I suggest you take your own advice and start comparing actual facts between groups of people and the hateful things they say, don't just use anecdotes and go off on tangents. Just do the math and make a point if you want. Calling people names without facts or backing it up is useless. Even you seem to agree with this basic statement even though you repeatedly don't follow it.

      Here, I'll show you what I mean:
      Bill uses things other than facts to convince his viewers that he is right by presenting "facts" in a derogatory or disrespectful way:
      http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/tallying-bill-oreillys-name-calling-100/
      not a perfect study but at least they tried to present a quantitative comparison rather than just calling the other side names.
      Stephen Colbert mocks this strategy and mimics it as a basic premise of his show, even calling Bill "papa bear" and quoting him more often than not in segments that mirror arguments that Bill makes.

      Your references to google searches of name calling by the left is interesting but to counter that would have just lead down a path of growing references to both sides. Eventually nothing would come of that. Since you keep trying to bring in other references and may feel that this post is ignoring that there are other comments in this thread or that other comments out there anywhere are valid to bring in, here'

    136. Re:Count me in by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You did not attack the substance of the argument in the original post and called people names.

      I said this before, and if you can read, please work you back up and find it again. For that matter, it kinda proves that my argument is not a strawman. See, your very definition of strawman starts with "misrepresenting the opponent's argument." I didn't do that because, and pay attention to this part, I WAS NOT RESPONDING TO REFUTE HIS ARGUMENT. I WAS RESPONDING TO USE HIS POST AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT. Now, if I were to say, "the original poster is a hate monger, so his argument is invalid", then you might have a point. NO, NO NO NO NO. That is not what I'm saying. One more time: His post was an example of a personal attack.

      So, dude, stop with the bullshit. I made a point, gave examples and did my best to explain something in a way simple enough for underachieving second grader to understand, but evidently, you like to pretend that you don't have the mental capacity to grasp it. I provided example after example after example of personal attacks and insults coming from the left, and the only example you provide is me calling them out on it. Evidently, in your mind, me saying "these arguments are hate based" is more hateful than calling someone a Nazi or saying that their followers are retarded.

      The sad part is that no matter what the left says it doesn't matter, but as soon as I say anything at all about it, I'm suddenly the asshole. Your course of logic is no different than telling a cop that he deserves a ticket because he had to speed to catch you.

      Seriously, here is the golden comment of all:

      Call people hatemongers all you like, others can see your statements for what they are.

      I'm a hate monger because I called the people that called other people retarded and evil "hate mongers". Really dude, read that again. If you don't get it, go find someone and ask them the following question:
      "Say, if someone says something really mean to someone else, and I call them a big fat meanie, am I the meanie or are they?"
      I even simplified it for you.

      Sorry, I've been as civil as possible up to this point. I've done my best not to hurl insults, and I'm not going to start now. That said, what I'm going to say is not an insult, but what I honestly believe to be fact, and I offer this thread as proof.

      Dude, you are a fucking idiot.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    137. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how you never admit you gave an insult and now you do it again. Following this was hilarious!

      "Say, if someone says something really mean to someone else, and I call them a big fat meanie, am I the meanie or are they?"

      Not what happened. you said that you were in a group that didn't do that. That's the hyprocracy. And you were called on it. Mocked like you should be. and then finally spanked with your own examples which you never address again.

      How about this: "Say, if someone says something really mean to someone else, and I call them a big fat meanie, can I claim that I'm in the group that doesn't call people names?"

      Bonus question: "do I claim one group does something and not another but then ignore when they're proven to do it more by my own methods?"

      HA! Thanks for the entertainment guys! you should both get a life!

    138. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh and you might want to look up what you keep calling "AD HOMINEM":

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Common_misconceptions

      Common misconceptions
      Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy

      the op didn't say that they had festering mouths so therefor what they said didn't matter, moron!

    139. Re:Count me in by bobcote · · Score: 1

      Why do people think Colbert is telling the truth and Beck is not? Because he says so?
      Both are playing to a demographic for ratings.
      The difference -- Beck's demographic leaves the house and votes.

    140. Re:Count me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that that was the original poster's joke -- thanks for explaining it, though...

  2. Go Stephen! by bhsx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, it was funny when it made the top page of Reddit. It was funnier when they acknowledged it on the Comedy Central blog. It will be the ultimate insult to GB and Fox WHEN Stephen gets about 1M more people there than Glen did.

    --
    put the what in the where?
    1. Re:Go Stephen! by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      If he does this I will be there.

    2. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but every political/issue rally is absurd. Million man march anyone? The countless demonstrations for the environment? Any rally with a politician?

      These events only serve to make the participants feel like they are doing something.

    3. Re:Go Stephen! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What exactly is funny about it? I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. But I don't get what's deep about what basically amounts to "Durr, let's do a mock rally". Seriously, the idea to lampoon somebody is original or clever?

      He won't do it because anybody with half a brain sees how unoriginal, dreary, obvious, and boring the idea is. I don't watch his show, but going for the obvious tack doesn't seem his style.

    4. Re:Go Stephen! by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      Yeah because the march of Martin Luther King really proved itself useless...
      Like the protests of Gandhi...

      You're dismissing people actually taking part into something because you are passive. Maybe it makes you feel better but it's still retarded.

    5. Re:Go Stephen! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It will be the ultimate insult to GB and Fox WHEN Stephen gets about 1M more people there than Glen did.

      It will show that Americans care more about comedy than about politics. Why would it be surprising in a country where only a small percentage of the people vote?

      --
      Qxe4
    6. Re:Go Stephen! by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think the funniest thing would be the signs the Colbert supporters would be carrying. I'm picturing things like:

      "You'll Pry My Teller-Ulam Configuration Thermonuclear Device From My Cold Dead Hands! / 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed!"

      "Abortion Kills! / Also, Has Anybody Seen My Keys? I Think I Dropped Them Somewhere Around Here."

      "I Have A Third-Grade Education And I VOTE!"

      "Barack Obama Is An Incompetent Kenyan Socialist Buffoon Who's Carefully Engineering The Wholesale Restructuring Of Our Society For Militant Islam!"

      "Don't Tread On Me / (pic) / Because I'm A Snake And Stuff!"

      "I Don't Support Socialist Road Spending / I Took The Subway To The Protest!"

      "Bring Back The 1950s!"

      "There's A Gathering Storm Of Gays Coming For Your Kids. RUN! Run Like The Wind!"

      Oh, and probably a lot of chalkboards. ;)

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    7. Re:Go Stephen! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Like those stupid protests against child labor a century ago. What a waste of time. Or like those stupid protests against the Vietnam war, which didn't change anything.

    8. Re:Go Stephen! by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jon Stewart does a much better parody of Beck anyway, with his leaping around and nonsensical chalkboards and crazy pauses where he acts like he's going to cry.

      Colbert is a parody of the more serious right-wing shows, not the histrionic and absurd Beck, which didn't really exist when he created that persona.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Go Stephen! by killmenow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The reason it was so clean afterward is there were only 50,000 people there.

    10. Re:Go Stephen! by mqduck · · Score: 1

      It was funnier when they acknowledged it on the Comedy Central blog.

      Link?

      --
      Property is theft.
    11. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will show that Americans care more about comedy than about politics.

      Most people would file Mr. Beck under "comedy."

    12. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And they asked people not to bring signs because they needed to legally pretend it was nonpartisan.

    13. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read that book about the straw man? He's made of straw, so he's really easy to knock down. ... and your mother is a whore.

    14. Re:Go Stephen! by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      Jon Stewart's parody is 42 kinds of greatness! Steven, however, would be the right one to do a play on Beck's rally though.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    15. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old people don't have anything to litter with, aside from their teeth (which are white and shiny, so they're not a terrible eyesore).

    16. Re:Go Stephen! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After a Colbert rally, I am quite confident that there will be trash all over the place.

      Huh... so I suppose you've done an in-depth survey, and have thus proven that Colbert Report viewers are slobs... or something?

      Fuck, I'm saddened, yet unsurprised, you got modded up... apparently there are 3-4 idiots out there who believe that baseless opinions insulting groups they dislike qualifies as "interesting".

    17. Re:Go Stephen! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's easy to get 1M MORE people to stand up for government handouts, affirmative action, race baiting, and pop culture coolness.

    18. Re:Go Stephen! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      stupid protests against the Vietnam war, which didn't change anything

      I don't know. It got a whole shit-ton of South Vietnamese purged and relegated the remainder to live in communism since the US wasn't there to prevent it. Nice work, liberals!

    19. Re:Go Stephen! by sorak · · Score: 1

      He should do a "tonight's word" segment in which someone stands behind him with a chalkboard writing things by hand.

    20. Re:Go Stephen! by sorak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have no idea how many people will show up at a Colbert rally, but I can tell you one very significant difference between the rally that Glen Beck held and one that Colbert holds. After the Glen Beck rally, it looked like the grounds crew had just finished getting the place ready for an event, everything picked up and put away, no trash on the ground. After a Colbert rally, I am quite confident that there will be trash all over the place.

      I really hope that Colbert does hold such a rally, it will tell us a lot about what is going on in this country.

      So is that a relevant issue? Should we decide the merits of MLK based on how many litterbugs where in his crowd compared to an equivalently sized Klan meeting?

    21. Re:Go Stephen! by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      I will take a day of my vacation for this if he can do it.

    22. Re:Go Stephen! by speederaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It will show that Americans care more about comedy than about politics. Why would it be surprising in a country where only a small percentage of the people vote?

      ..which makes sense since most Americans think that politics is a joke.

    23. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comedian holds comedy show. Trash on ground. World in flames!

      I'm not sure how you get much out of Colbert holding a "rally" and people not picking up trash. People like comedy and don't pick up after themselves? I think maybe you're finding meaning in things that don't really mean anything.

    24. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So your "very significant" difference is at this time only in your expectations, since the Colbert event hasn't happened yet.

      I see one difference between a normal person and you, and that is that based only on my imagination, I am quite confident you eat your nail pickings.

    25. Re:Go Stephen! by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Amazing. You disagree with their politics (or is it their sense of humor?), you assume they will be slobs, and then further extrapolate this assumption of how they might will have behaved in the future to further support your negative opinion of them. I don't claim to know what is going on in this country, but I can see what is going on in your post.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    26. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam? And it was the protests that screwed things up? And you think the citizens of Vietnam are 'relegated to live under communism?' Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government instituted free market reforms in 1986. Vietnam is a member of the WTO, and well respected in the international community. The human rights situation is still abysmal, but improving. Give it time and Vietnam will be indistinguishable from the free and prosperous hybrid socialist/free market economies of Europe. As of right now, their economy is doing quite a bit better than ours. Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    27. Re:Go Stephen! by masmullin · · Score: 1

      You know, people are employed to clean the grounds after rallies you know. What Beck and followers did was TAKE JOBS AWAY FROM AMERICANS! Many of the grounds keepers have families and children. Beck followers are taking food away from babies!

    28. Re:Go Stephen! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Jon Stewart does a much better parody of Beck anyway, with his leaping around and nonsensical chalkboards and crazy pauses where he acts like he's going to cry.

      It's true, he does a better Glen Beck parody, but it becomes tiresome and not funny after about 30 seconds. The point just gets hammered into the ground.

    29. Re:Go Stephen! by masmullin · · Score: 2

      It's easy to get 1M MORE people to stand up for government handouts, affirmative action, race baiting, and pop culture coolness.

      ...than bigotry, ignorance, self aggrandization, and chalk boards? Yes, yes it is. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

    30. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or like those stupid protests against the Vietnam war, which didn't change anything.

      They didn't. Are we at peace now? We just moved the wars to Afghanistan and expanded into the Middle East. What exactly did those stupid protests accomplish? Great! You drove child labor out of the US! Along with too many jobs. The only healthy job market in the US is bureaucracy and accounting, and organized crime...

    31. Re:Go Stephen! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      If the government can bequeath unto you your own property, then it was never yours to begin with. Imploded? I'll take booms and busts over the benevolent dictator deciding what I deserve to reap from my work.

      Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam?

      The North Vietnamese military machine had been severely pummeled into near desolation. After every major push by the NVA, the NVA was barely able to continue. Only thu strategic use of cease fires and peace accord charades were the NVA able to regroup. Win? Maybe, but a Korea-like scenario was plenty feasible. But the defeatist liberals would have none of it. Fight communism? Hell no, Jane Fonda wanted communism (as long as she could still be rich and famous).

    32. Re:Go Stephen! by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

      As of right now, their [Vietnam's] economy is doing quite a bit better than ours. Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism.

      No.

      By any measure other than growth, Vietnam's economy trails every G7 economy, even when measured in PPP (purchasing power parity).

      If you're going to look at growth (as opposed to per-capita levels), then by your logic some Sub-Saharan African economies are, "...doing quite a bit better than ours."

      An analogous example is the USSR economy under Nikita Kruschev not 'crushing us'.

      --
      __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    33. Re:Go Stephen! by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam? And it was the protests that screwed things up?

      Uh, yeah. We lost zero major battles in Vietnam. Exactly zero. Had the bombing campaign been allowed to continue and not been limited (again, due to liberal protests), we bet your ass we could have won that war.

      And you think the citizens of Vietnam are 'relegated to live under communism?' Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government instituted free market reforms in 1986.

      So, what you are saying is that Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government realized that communism doesn't really work and tossed aside all that "to each according to their need" bullshit.

      Vietnam is a member of the WTO, and well respected in the international community. The human rights situation is still abysmal, but improving.

      What gets me is the respect coming from you, even though you are fully aware that " The human rights situation is still abysmal...". A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent. Populations don't want to be oppressed. They are forced to allow it to happen because the oppressor is stronger than they are and is either stronger or more staying power than those fighting for freedom.

      Give it time and Vietnam will be indistinguishable from the free and prosperous hybrid socialist/free market economies of Europe.

      You mean, like they could have had since 1975? How many souls spent their entire lives under oppression because someone thought that if we showed peace and love that the world would turn into a John Lennon song.

      As of right now, their economy is doing quite a bit better than ours.

      Really? While our economy sucks, it only sucks when compared to itself. Our economy grew more in the past year than the entire economy of Vietnam. The US GDP per capita is $46,381. Vietnam's is $2,942. Um, I think our economy is a bit better than Vietnam's. So, given your track record of "non-facts", I guess we can throw out your last point of "Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism."

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    34. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living across the street from a small-town convention center, I can tell you that more (literal) trash gets blown into my yard after a Christian group meeting than any other event that happens over there. There's quite a bit of debris from the circus when they stage the animals there, but never more than when the Bible on Parade group organizes there. And I'm not talking about fliers that they hand out that people throw away because they don't hand out fliers from what I can see - I'm talking about fast food wrappers and other detritus. I don't know who these people are specifically, but they are the filthiest most vile group of people I've ever observed.

    35. Re:Go Stephen! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It will show that Americans care more about comedy than about politics

      The problem is a lot of Americans don't seem to know the difference between comedy and politics. Whether it's the more left and centrist oriented types that consider Jon Stewart the paragon of journalist integrity or the Teabaggers and other assorted nutjobs on the right who seem to think guys like Beck and Limbaugh are brilliant rhetoricians and analysts, what it boils down to is that people have confused politics and humor.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    36. Re:Go Stephen! by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Redundant

      After a Colbert rally, I am quite confident that there will be trash all over the place.

      Huh... so I suppose you've done an in-depth survey, and have thus proven that Colbert Report viewers are slobs... or something?

      Fuck, I'm saddened, yet unsurprised, you got modded up... apparently there are 3-4 idiots out there who believe that baseless opinions insulting groups they dislike qualifies as "interesting".

      Um.... project much?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    37. Re:Go Stephen! by Maniacal · · Score: 1

      It's probably based on the fact that the people at Colberts rally would be liberals. At Becks rally and at the Tea Party rally there were conservatives and both times the mall was left spotless by the crowd. Compare that to the inauguration crowd for Obama who left the place looking like a bomb went off. It gives a bit of an insight into the character of the different people attending the events.

      --
      MG
    38. Re:Go Stephen! by tftp · · Score: 1

      Should we decide the merits of MLK based on how many litterbugs where in his crowd compared to an equivalently sized Klan meeting?

      We certainly can conclude a lot about the audience. You can take the next step and theorize what kind of a message will appeal to that audience, but that would be not very reliable.

    39. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Huh... so I suppose you've done an in-depth survey, and have thus proven that Colbert Report viewers are slobs... or something?"

      I guess he's expecting that there will be actual black people there.

    40. Re:Go Stephen! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, Colbert viewers are liberals. Liberals think it is someone else's problem to clean up the messes they make.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    41. Re:Go Stephen! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thanks, I've been trying to identify and foe the bigoted, partisan hacks around here, so I can filter out their idiotic BS. ArcherB made the list long ago, but I'm proud to say you've made it, too! Congrats!

    42. Re:Go Stephen! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well considering that the Klan rally would be composed as the same demographic from an earlier generation as the potential Colbert rally, yeah, probably.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    43. Re:Go Stephen! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Just how does a clueless war monger like you justify using the handle of gandhi?

    44. Re:Go Stephen! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Until you factor in that the USA has had socialist policies in place for some time now.

    45. Re:Go Stephen! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      No, I assume that they will be the same type of people who show up at most left wing rallies. The only rallies I have ever seen where there was not a lot of trash lying around afterward are the Tea Party rallies and now this Glen Beck rally. This says a lot about the people who showed up at the Glen beck rally and their sense of responsibility.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    46. Re:Go Stephen! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      if placing liberty over peace makes me a war monger, fine. but you need to back your statement up.

      and while you are at it, behold the greatest work of art that American Cinema has ever produced!

    47. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 1

      Socialism for the rich isn't really socialism, though.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    48. Re:Go Stephen! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Most people would file Mr. Beck under "comedy."

      According to his ratings, I'd not put money on that bet...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    49. Re:Go Stephen! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Actually even though Stephen Colbert never actually tells us his political leanings his viewers are almost all liberals. The thing with liberals is they have a sense of entitlement and they think they government should have a massive role in society. So they won't litter because they are slobs. They will litter because they assume the government will have hired hundres of street cleaners to clean up after them.

    50. Re:Go Stephen! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I've been trying to identify and foe the bigoted, partisan hacks around here, so I can filter out their idiotic BS. Spun made the list long ago, but I'm proud to say you've made it, too! Congrats!

    51. Re:Go Stephen! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      They came first for the Rich, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Rich. Then they came for the Business Owners, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Business Owner. Then they came for the Gun Owners, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Gun Owner. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

      Socialism in any form and by any other name is still Socialism. Vietnam is doing ok because they adopted capitalism. Not the other way around.

    52. Re:Go Stephen! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      W00t! *high-fives*

    53. Re:Go Stephen! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Considering how much work they have to to cleaning up after the greed corruption and immoral war mongering that was the the cause of pretty much all that is wrong now, I'd say that they are more than capable of cleaning up after the children like you.

    54. Re:Go Stephen! by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      It's astounding how some people can define winning. We're lucky they are not crawling over the beaches of California. From day one we had two choices. We could either start out with the big weapons (nukes) or we could not fight in Vietnam. Engaging that enemy the way we did was a waste of human life for all involved as well as for people who were just going about their normal lives and happened to be in the way.

    55. Re:Go Stephen! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      I have your own shameful words to show that you are nothing but a simple minded war monger who's only concern for liberty is the liberty to kill others in order to make yourself feel like you are somewhat of a man. unfortunately for you, the adults who are going to have to clean up after you, and your impotent temper tantrums are tired of pretending you are a descent human being just so you can feel special.

    56. Re:Go Stephen! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism."

      Periodic recessions and depressions (like hurricanse) are normal, though until more people understand that fewer will be ready.

      Vietnam succeeds as it becomes more capitalist, ditto China.

      Communism is good for one thing, destroying rotted systems that deserve to die. It has been a TRANSITIONAL system, mainly because its economics.
      Communism freed China from foreign domination as it did Viet Nam.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    57. Re:Go Stephen! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Whoa. And you accuse me of temper tantrums?

      When did I feel like a man for killing someone?

    58. Re:Go Stephen! by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how many people will show up at a Colbert rally, but I can tell you one very significant difference between the rally that Glen Beck held and one that Colbert holds. After the Glen Beck rally, it looked like the grounds crew had just finished getting the place ready for an event, everything picked up and put away, no trash on the ground. After a Colbert rally, I am quite confident that there will be trash all over the place.

      It's really just a question of temporal shift, isn't it?

      During the Colbert rally there'll be no trash in evidence anywhere, whereas during the Beck rally there's trash all over the place!

      --
      licet differant, aequabitur
    59. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 1

      Vietnam was never really socialist. Like most places claiming to be, they were and are an oligarchy. If you want to see real socialism, look at countries where socialists come to power through free elections, like many European countries. Or Chile, oh wait, we had Allende killed.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    60. Re:Go Stephen! by sorak · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to be serious?

    61. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 1

      I understand that recessions and depressions are considered a normal part of capitalism. That is one of the reasons I consider it a failure.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    62. Re:Go Stephen! by stephencrane · · Score: 1

      Yeah...they don't want a lampoon. They don't want Colbert to lampoon Beck's past rally. They want Colbert to incisively and viciously make obvious the the layer cake of falsehoods and manipulations used in Beck's rally and message. They want a 4-hour Colbert Report special, live, at the Lincoln Memorial, roasting Beck's lie-repetition methodology using the premise of a rally lampoon. That's not the same thing as lampooning a rally. Lampooning's usually pretty low-brow, good for a few laughs, but then done. If that were the case, if lampooning is all that Colbert really did, he would never have lasted as long as he has.

    63. Re:Go Stephen! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am serious. This is not entirely fair to Colbert, since I don't really know his audience. However, it is completely fair to those who oppose what Beck's rally was about.
      The Klan...overwhelmingly voted Democrat
      Those who oppose Beck...overwhelmingly vote Democrat
      The Klan..used threats and violence to intimidate their opponents
      Those who oppose Beck...use threats and violence to intimidate their opponents
      I could go on, but I think you see what I am getting at.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    64. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What gets me is the respect coming from you, even though you are fully aware that " The human rights situation is still abysmal...". A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent.

      Yeah and we went into Iraq to save the people from tyranny. If what you say is true, then you got a lot of splaining to do about South Korea where WE WON and they had similar human rights problems until well into the 80s too.

    65. Re:Go Stephen! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      So, a chicken hawk. Get others to do your killing to you can live vicariously through them in an attempt to feel like a man, and make a quick buck too I would expect. P.S. Now would be the time that you try to impress us with the size of your truck or the number of guns you own.

    66. Re:Go Stephen! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam? And it was the protests that screwed things up?

      Uh, yeah. We lost zero major battles in Vietnam. Exactly zero. Had the bombing campaign been allowed to continue and not been limited (again, due to liberal protests), we bet your ass we could have won that war.

      Except the political battle.

      And you think the citizens of Vietnam are 'relegated to live under communism?' Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government instituted free market reforms in 1986.

      So, what you are saying is that Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government realized that communism doesn't really work and tossed aside all that "to each according to their need" bullshit.

      That would be a sterling example of winning a war by losing a battle and letting Vietnam realize that communism isn't a plausible way to run a country in the long term.

      Vietnam is a member of the WTO, and well respected in the international community. The human rights situation is still abysmal, but improving.

      What gets me is the respect coming from you, even though you are fully aware that " The human rights situation is still abysmal...". A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent. Populations don't want to be oppressed. They are forced to allow it to happen because the oppressor is stronger than they are and is either stronger or more staying power than those fighting for freedom.

      We can't force democracy on people, by definition.

      Give it time and Vietnam will be indistinguishable from the free and prosperous hybrid socialist/free market economies of Europe.

      You mean, like they could have had since 1975? How many souls spent their entire lives under oppression because someone thought that if we showed peace and love that the world would turn into a John Lennon song.

      Again, you cannot force democracy on people who don't want it. North Vietnam would not be as free as it is today had we not withdrawn from the war.

      As of right now, their economy is doing quite a bit better than ours.

      Really? While our economy sucks, it only sucks when compared to itself. Our economy grew more in the past year than the entire economy of Vietnam. The US GDP per capita is $46,381. Vietnam's is $2,942. Um, I think our economy is a bit better than Vietnam's. So, given your track record of "non-facts", I guess we can throw out your last point of "Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism."

      GDP per capita is not adjusted for the market value of goods. I bet they have iPhone clones that cost 1/10th of what ours cost.

    67. Re:Go Stephen! by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you invent an economic system that doesn't have them. Thanks.

    68. Re:Go Stephen! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I have a small pickup, but we mostly drive the Prius (not a 'statement', I just like the car). I have a pistol and a rifle, but with the price of ammo these days I don't get to go shooting that much.

      I went to Iraq for a year with the Army National Guard...and have been in the military for over 14 years.

      I'm the hard-core conservative who believes in habitat conservation. I'm a militant recycler with military experience. I'm the pro-property rights, limited government white male who thinks gays are ok, deforestation is bad, and AGW is possible.

      Hows your stereotypes going so far? To be fair, you did change it already once.

    69. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 1

      We could try what Chile started to try with Project Cybersyn. Right before we had Allende killed and replaced by Pinochet. The problem with a planned economy is the lack of price signals. As soon as a socialist figured out a way to make a planned economy work, we killed him. It's pretty simple: modern communications systems plus participatory shop-floor democracy plus democratically elected socialist government equals a working planned economy with no recessions.

      Or, if you want a modern day, working and profitable example, look at the Mondragon Collective. They took one of the poorest, most isolated regions of Spain and turned it into an industrial powerhouse in under fifty years. Everything there is a cooperative, and everyone with a good idea is encouraged to start their own. Your cooperative bank lends you money, hooks you up with a cooperative staffing firm, helps you with your business plans, gets you a cooperative marketing firm, and points you towards cooperative suppliers. Around ninety percent of new business there survive more than five years, what's the survival rate for new businesses under a capitalist system? Try the inverse of that, about ten percent.

      Capitalism is all about protecting the interests of the elite. It is the opposite of a free market. In fact, socialist societies like Mondragon pull off a true free market better than any capitalist system. And nobody has to be homeless and starving to death on the streets.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    70. Re:Go Stephen! by epine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Had the bombing campaign been allowed to continue and not been limited (again, due to liberal protests), we bet your ass we could have won that war.

      Oh yes. Unfortunately, the famous liberal dove Robert McNamara doesn't agree with you if you read between the lines of "Fog of War".

      One of the main reasons the bombing was less effective that you make out was the C Chi tunnels which IIRC were far more extensive than bomber-command wished to believe.

      From Operation Thunder

      B-52 bombers, that could fly at heights that prevented them being seen or heard, dropped 8 million tons of bombs on Vietnam between 1965 and 1973. This was over three times the amount of bombs dropped throughout the whole of the Second World War and worked out at approximately 300 tons for every man, woman and child living in Vietnam.

      So, how many million tons did we fall short of achieving an easy victory? Another 700 tons per man, woman and child?

      Thanks for playing.

    71. Re:Go Stephen! by Cwix · · Score: 1

      race baiting

      I can ignore the other stuff, because your an obvious beck fan and you feel the need to lash out when someone makes fun of your god.

      Id bet money that there is a MUCH MUCH more diverse group of people at any Colbert rally.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    72. Re:Go Stephen! by Nytehauq · · Score: 1

      Had the bombing campaign been allowed to continue and not been limited (again, due to liberal protests), we bet your ass we could have won that war.

      This is an entirely irrelevant point, true or false, unless you establish that we had a right to be anywhere near Vietnam in the first place.

      So, what you are saying is that Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government realized that communism doesn't really work and tossed aside all that "to each according to their need" bullshit.

      Are you saying that the U.S. has the right to impose economic systems it views as favorable on other countries while simultaneously discounting the impact that being bombed into the ground has on a country's economic capacity?

      A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent.

      We killed about three million Vietnamese -- that doesn't speak well for promoting human rights.

      Populations don't want to be oppressed. They are forced to allow it to happen because the oppressor is stronger than they are and is either stronger or more staying power than those fighting for freedom.

      So why were we fighting against the communist movement? It had far more popular support.

    73. Re:Go Stephen! by epine · · Score: 1

      Look before you leap. The idiot I quoted appears not to have realized he was dividing by population quoted in thousands. Many demographic tables quote population in thousands with no footnote. 300 pounds per person, not 300 tons. My brain didn't get past the 8 million tons until after I clicked submit.

      I more or less agree that if America had dropped 24 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, they might have been able to declare victory. Paying to Fedex another 16 million tons would have required a Jerry Lewis telethon or two. Vietnam by then would have resembled a lunar landscape. American citizens donating $1000 could their name on their very own crater.

    74. Re:Go Stephen! by saxoholic · · Score: 1

      Protect the right to keep and arm bears.

    75. Re:Go Stephen! by Delarth799 · · Score: 1

      Kinda like that liberal fella Bush we had not too long ago huh?

    76. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.... project much?

      Awww, look who learned a new word today, but didn't bother taking the time to learn what it actually means and so keeps engaging in it rather than using it like an intelligent person.
      Aren't you just the cutest little fringe wingnut lunatic. Yes you are!

    77. Re:Go Stephen! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      I don't much care for Beck. He's too much a mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch. And he is too over-the-top.

      But the democrat party relies on race baiting to get minorities in their corner. It's not race baiting for race baiting's benefit: it's just a means to an end (power).

      I happen to believe in limited government, individual liberty, and property rights.... I could care less what color you are.

    78. Re:Go Stephen! by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      The Dolchstosslegende called, it wants its lies back.

      You killed 2 million Vietnamese civilians and your pet regime managed to outdo the communists. Despite dropping more bombs than during all of WWII you still weren't anywhere close to pacifying the country.

      It's disgusting that you then come up with the same fucking lies the Nazis used to get to power (it wasn't our heroic soldiers but the traitorous socialists at home) and that you regret that the US didn't more to bomb civilians.

      I know that US schools suck but, man, learn some history. The current crop of American conservatives really scares the bejeezus out of me.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    79. Re:Go Stephen! by maxume · · Score: 1

      What are the relative rates of starting new businesses?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    80. Re:Go Stephen! by Nyder · · Score: 1

      It will be the ultimate insult to GB and Fox WHEN Stephen gets about 1M more people there than Glen did.

      It will show that Americans care more about comedy than about politics. Why would it be surprising in a country where only a small percentage of the people vote?

      whats the point of voting? The corporations & lawyers win, no matter which person you vote for.

      I'd rather spend the time getting stoned so I will think everything is okay.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    81. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had the bombing campaign been allowed to continue and not been limited (again, due to liberal protests), we bet your ass we could have won that war.

      Now, I know you're not much of a thinker and you like you words small and your thoughts simple, but can you come up with anything we would have actually won? Oh, yeah, you don't actually care how many innocent people get fired with napalm and chemicals as long as you can say you won. Nothing positive to point to for winning, obviously, but as long as you get to jump around saying you're # 1 then you're happy. Everybody loses, but you get to pretend you won, wow.

      So, what you are saying is that Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government realized that communism doesn't really work and tossed aside all that "to each according to their need" bullshit.

      Which they only ever picked up because we were afraid to help them throw *France* out so they went to the people who would help them get free of colonial oppression. Because they wanted to be free we blew them to hell. So, while it's easy to toss around nonsense like that if you're deeply ignorant and utterly lacking in any sense of ethics or personal responsibility, don't forget if you actually bothered to pay attention, you'd recognize your own culpability, Sparky.
      They wanted nothing in the world more than to be like us before we blew the fuck out of them. That's the point you're seeming to blindly flail around.

      . A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent.

      You are a very dishonest person. We were there for the exact opposite purpose. If you'd ever cared at all about not sounding like a fool, you would have at some point stumbled upon the fact that just because somebody says something doesn't mean that it is true. This is the case 100 fold for military propaganda.
      If you cared at all about knowing what you were talking about you'd know all of this. But you know nothing about Vietnam, why we were there, how we got ourselves there. I mean your mind is a complete blank of anything but bullshit fascist propaganda. Why do you hate America so much that you can't even take a few minutes out of your schedule to inform yourself as is your responsibility as a citizen? The rest of us are sick of carrying the slack for you lazy, cowardly slack jawed, ignorant leeches.

      You mean, like they could have had since 1975?

      No, like they could have had long before that if America hadn't intentionally fucked them to make them a boogie man to justify increased, unnecessary military spending in spite of the fact that they repeatedly begged us to help them establish a Secular, Liberal, society in the image of their one time idol, America.

      How many souls spent their entire lives uHad the bombing campaign been allowed to continue and not been limited (again, due to liberal protests), we bet your ass we could have won that war.

      Now, I know you're not much of a thinker and you like you words small and your thoughts simple, but can you come up with anything we would have actually won? Oh, yeah, you don't actually care how many innocent people get fired with napalm and chemicals as long as you can say you won. Nothing positive to point to for winning, obviously, but as long as you get to jump around saying you're # 1 then you're happy. Everybody loses, but you get to pretend you won, wow.

      So, what you are saying is that Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government realized that communism doesn't really work and tossed aside all that "to each according to their need" bullshit.

      Which they only ever picked up because we were afraid to help them throw *France* out so they went to the people who would help them get free of colonial oppression. Because they wanted to be free we blew them to hell. So, while it's easy to toss around nonsense like that if you're deeply ignorant and utterly lacking in any sense of et

    82. Re:Go Stephen! by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      And I bet if you wished hard enough, every child in the world would have their own unicorn too.

    83. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 1

      Good question. They have a website, a page on wiki, you know, but I just had to type 'toddler keyboard' into Google on another thread, so I'm done looking stuff up for people for the day. :P

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    84. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 1

      No, I'd have to genetically engineer them and then find some way to clone them very quickly. It's possible, but you have to do something, wishing won't get it done.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    85. Re:Go Stephen! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia is a bit thin, but it does mention that there are 256 subordinate companies, so I would be comfortable making a statement like 'No fucking way do they start anywhere near as many companies as Americans'.

      (but then it might be a little difficult to figure out exactly how many companies a group of 80,000 Americans would start in 30 years)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    86. Re:Go Stephen! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Except the political battle.

      Every modern US president should understand that when s/he sends troops off to a fighting war a clock starts ticking, and when the time runs out he's got to bring the troops home or the public will elect someone else who will. (AIUI, the public was starting to sour even on WWII before it was over.)

      I don't suppose there's a way to know how far you can ride the clock when it starts, but you'd darn sure better be aware of this basic fact.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    87. Re: Go Stephen! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. Unfortunately, the famous liberal dove Robert McNamara doesn't agree with you if you read between the lines of "Fog of War".

      One of the main reasons the bombing was less effective that you make out was the C Chi tunnels which IIRC were far more extensive than bomber-command wished to believe.

      There is a historical tendency to overrate the effects of air power while a war is in progress. A post-WWII study found that the Allied strategic bombing campaign hadn't been nearly as effective as we counted on it being.

      The Germans planned on overrunning only the European portion of the USSR, and naively counted on destroying their trans-Ural warmaking capabilities with air strikes alone.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    88. Re: Go Stephen! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      But the defeatist liberals would have none of it.

      Don't know why this is modded 'insightful'. "Defeatist liberals" have never had that much influence. And it certainly wasn't just liberals who soured on the war before it was over.

      The problem - then and now - was that the US public will only tolerate so much blood & treasure invested into a foreign war that isn't extremely well motivated. (From what I've read the public was beginning to go sour on WWII before it was over - a well-motivated war if there ever was one.)

      Iraq and Afghanistan have been tolerated for so long because 9/11 gave us a faux since of mission. But that has been mostly used up, and it's not just liberals and anti-war types who are no longer supportive.

      It's not an accident that the generals and politicians have to keep coming up with new reasons for being there, and coming up with "surge"-style gimmicks to suggest that they really can fix an f*ed up country with guns and bombs.

      Afghanistan, meet Viet Nam; Viet Nam, meet Afghanistan.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    89. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fight communism? Hell no,

      Quite right.

      I prefer a market based solution. If you feel your system is superior, then surely it can prove itself so on its own merits with collosal government bailouts through payments to military contractors? I'm sorry you think communism was so superior that it required fighting and wouldn't have just lost naturally on the market of economic systems.

      Although I think Vietnam might have been worth the minor intervention it would have taken to get France to go away as Ho Chi Minh asked us so nicely so many times since he like myself and unlike you actually believed in the American system. It's too bad we decided to tell him to go fuck himself and go be a good slave and he actually cared enough about freedom to go where we forced him to go. Then we fucked Vietnam.

      Since you're such a fan of fighting communism, I'm quite surprised you can't even be bothered to take the time to understand that Vietnam had nothing at all to do with that. Well, perhaps, you might consider picking up a book or maybe attempting to learn something? You do sound ever so silly when you don't.

    90. Re:Go Stephen! by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      If the government can bequeath unto you your own property

      What are you even trying to say? Give you your own property?

      then it was never yours to begin with.

      BTW, there is eminent domain in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain So the U.S. seems just as bad as you're claiming Vietnam is.

    91. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I bet the people with bad ideas get told that before anyone commits to anything. Nobody has much family money to blow on bad business plans. I don't see that as a bad thing.

      The fact is that here in America we overvalue the entrepreneur, the leader, the risk taker. Which leads to people unsuited to the position attempting it, for status. I think that's why we have so many failures here.

      Over there, if you aren't cut out to start your own business, you work in a cooperative. You still get a say in how things are run and you get a decent middle class life. They used to have a society wide income cap of ten to one, richest to poorest. Now it's fifty to one. They voted on that. People felt, you know, we're doing pretty good as a society now, we can afford to give our best and brightest more.

      I don't find that the least bit surprising. Do you?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    92. Re:Go Stephen! by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What gets me is the respect coming from you, even though you are fully aware that " The human rights situation is still abysmal...". A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent.

      Yeah and we went into Iraq to save the people from tyranny. If what you say is true, then you got a lot of splaining to do about South Korea where WE WON and they had similar human rights problems until well into the 80s too.

      South Korea? BTW, how are they doing compared to the North?

      Thought so.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    93. Re:Go Stephen! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      First off, we didn't lose. When we left, S.V. was in a condition that, absent outside interference , it was strong enough to hold off N.V. indefinitely. The problem was, not long after we left, Russia/China (I forget which) renewed pouring military support into N.V., and the Congress was controlled by poltroon Democrats who blocked sufficient matching funding to S.V.

      The war was so difficult and long because the US leaders were ignorant and cowardly, refusing to block/destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail or bomb major population centers

      Yes, underestimating the tunnels was a major problem, but toward the end of the war we were beginning to get the picture. Regardless, the tunnels themselves were not enough to give N.V. victory. You can't grow enough plants in tunnels to feed an army. Given a more agressive war effort and a more intelligent use of available technology, the tunnels could have been rendered moot.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    94. Re:Go Stephen! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I bet Beck knows a lot more American history than you do.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    95. Re:Go Stephen! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      You missed my point, just the way many others likely have and will, so let me make that clearer. We didn't "lose" a political battle in the US; that's normal debate and free speech in action, like what happens every day in this country over every issue.

      We lost a political battle in Vietnam. We had more and more of the Vietnamese moving to help the North, instead of helping us, as the war progressed.

    96. Re:Go Stephen! by Maniacal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, Attila made a statement based on fact that you blasted him/her for and you were wrong. Wish I could say I was surprised at how you handle that. Maybe if you spent more time reading opposing ideas and viewpoints and less time trying to filter out the boogeyman you would have been able to google it and avoid looking like an ass.

      This one's cool, Beck rally vs. inaguration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7y8gEcoqas
      A little longer with a funny title "Post-Barackalyptic Wasteland" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMrJE7J3fWU
      This one's all dramatic looking http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2009/09/13/they-say-a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words-photo-after-obama-inauguration-ceremony-versus-photo-after-9-12-tea-party-rally/
      Here's one from a liberal rag for you. Scroll down to "Tell your grandchildren: 'I was there'. Two people sitting on a pile of trash looking super happy about it http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/cold_weather/page/2/

      --
      MG
    97. Re:Go Stephen! by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      What exactly is funny about it? I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. But I don't get what's deep about what basically amounts to "Durr, let's do a mock rally". Seriously, the idea to lampoon somebody is original or clever?

      He won't do it because anybody with half a brain sees how unoriginal, dreary, obvious, and boring the idea is. I don't watch his show, but going for the obvious tack doesn't seem his style.

      Well, when three times the people show up, it will give me hope for our society, as it means the smart people will outnumber the brain-dead Beck followers 3:1. Of course, if the opposite happens, I'm stocking up on ammo and finding an underground bunker to move into.

    98. Re:Go Stephen! by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the parody gets more support than the original, it makes a statement in bold.

      It's also not a half-bad excuse to have a party.

    99. Re:Go Stephen! by masmullin · · Score: 1

      He should, I dont live in the US.

      However, I think I might be able to name more of your "founding fathers" than MILF Palin can.

    100. Re:Go Stephen! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>So, how many million tons did we fall short of achieving an easy victory?

      It's not a matter of how many tons were dropped, but rather having the USAF on standby to bomb the hell out of the Ho Chi Minh trail anytime anything larger than a cow walked down one of the paths. Didn't require the expenditure of any American lives, and would have stopped the NV army from affecting a conquest of the south. This was more or less the agreement we had with SV, and we reneged on it.

      You know that when Cambodia fell, they were pleading with the USAF to bomb Pol Pot's army that had encircled their capital, right? But because of the cowards we had in leadership positions then, we allowed their government to fall, millions to be genocided, and an entire country reduced to the Stone Age, quite ironically because we did NOT bomb them.

      Even though the ground war had become untenable politically, there was no reason the air support needed to be pulled as well, except we had brainless doves running our government by then.

    101. Re:Go Stephen! by sorak · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am serious. This is not entirely fair to Colbert, since I don't really know his audience. However, it is completely fair to those who oppose what Beck's rally was about.

      The Klan...overwhelmingly voted Democrat

      Those who oppose Beck...overwhelmingly vote Democrat

      Of course those who overwhelmingly voted democrat were predominantly white southern men, and the north was more likely to vote republican. Since then, the two parties have switched roles. Political partisanship is just plain ridiculous when you look at the 1960s or earlier.

      The Klan..used threats and violence to intimidate their opponents

      Those who oppose Beck...use threats and violence to intimidate their opponents

      That's just wrong. Glen Beck is a mentally unstable conspiracy theorist with delusions of grandeur. Those who oppose Glen Beck do so by playing footage of his show. That's all it takes.

      I could go on, but I think you see what I am getting at.

      Yes. I see. If those are your two strongest points, then you may want to rethink your position.

    102. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnam? Isn't that where America first discovered the surrender monkey?

    103. Re:Go Stephen! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Dude, Attila made a statement based on fact

      You know, you're a classic example of a partisan hack who doesn't understand the difference between "fact" and "prejudice". I mean, don't get me wrong, it's interesting to observe in practice, but you clearly don't see how truth and truthiness are not, in fact, the same thing.

      I mean, look at you. You take two pieces of "evidence", then somehow extrapolate that into an entire worldview in which you judge millions and millions of people. It's really *quite* pathetic, and something you should be deeply ashamed of, rather than trying to defend it.

    104. Re:Go Stephen! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I agree he drags the joke out too long, but the actual Glenn Beck is just as tiresome, so I don't see how any could do a parody that remained funny for a few minutes.

      Beck simply cannot talk. He sits there and repeats things, he goes in circles, he rants, he cries. It's near incoherent. Even ignoring the crazy ideas, someone who behaves like that shouldn't have a TV show. I could explain things better than he does, and I'm not any sort of public speaker at all. And, um...a chalkboard? Really? What the hell? Is this 1973? Did we deinvent computer graphics while I wasn't looking? We all switched to computer-generated images because it's clearer to read. (Where the hell do you even find a chalkboard anymore?)

      Of course, those complaints assume the point is to explain something, but really the point is to get an emotion across. It's a new genre of TV, a 'monologue soap opera'. Ignore the plot holes and nonsense and bad effects, don't expect to get from point A to point B, and just let the overacting wash over you. Feel what they feel!

      At some point, doing Glenn Beck just becomes uncomfortable. It's like making fun of the guy on the bus who sits there talking to himself. Okay, yes, he acts crazy, so, um, yeah. It's sorta sad.

      I guess Stewart could do the crazy mannerisms and speech just for a short amount of time, and then switch to just mocking the ideas.

      The problem is, most of the time Beck doesn't actually have any 'ideas' at all to mock...he really only gets parodied by Stewart when he makes some actual crazy claim, as opposed to speaking emotional gibberish and overacting.

      And even then often the idea introduced is so absurd that Steward just does his 'lone straight man in a world of crazy people' routine, which works a lot better. Like "Yes, let's all return the pants-pissing terror of 9/12."

      He just ignores Beck when Beck's incoherent, as usually, and then plays straight man when Beck is really really stupid. He only goes to a parody of Beck when Beck is saying 'slightly coherent but moderately stupid' stuff. It's a fine line.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    105. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam? And it was the protests that screwed things up?

      Uh, yeah. We lost zero major battles in Vietnam. Exactly zero. Had the bombing campaign been allowed to continue and not been limited (again, due to liberal protests), we bet your ass we could have won that war.

      Dude as someone outside the US who had their countrymen die in that war this this represents the US attitude best summed up by the apocraphyl story about the naval ship and the lighthouse...You already dropped more bombs in Vietnam than in everyone did in all of WW2...

    106. Re:Go Stephen! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you for recognizing the truth, which is that the protests successfully ended the war in Vietnam, and successfully ended child labor in the United States. As you have now come to say, protests in both cases were successful in their goal, as are many protests (and many other protests are not). Have a good day. It's always nice to find common ground.

    107. Re:Go Stephen! by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can make the case that every rally is absurd. If you would recall, the famous MLK "I Have a Dream" oratory that effectively put the national spotlight on the issue of segregation and institutionalized racism in the South was part of a march and rally for labor-- and Dr. King wasn't even the keynote speaker! Without this rally, would there be the political motivation for a Civil Rights Act? I doubt it-- the Democrats (particularly LBJ) knew that it would kill the coalition in the South. Without the rally, I daresay that the Democrats would be the right-wing conservative party instead of the Republicans today, because the primary impetus behind the Southern Strategy would be nerfed.

      I would argue that the sole point of such rallies is to gain attention from, and to raise awareness among, the people who matter-- the people who vote*. Sure, nearly every political rally fails in this regard, because usually they're about nothing, they're about something or someone trivial, or they're highly deceptive. But I bet there were a handful like that march for labor and freedom on Washington that truly changed the course of history.

      * Nowadays, it's all about the people who finance candidates and ballot initiatives, but the bottom line is, unless the financiers can commit electoral fraud on a massive scale with impunity, the ultimate power still resides with the populace.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    108. Re:Go Stephen! by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      You might as well say that you consider ecosystems a failure because their normal functioning includes periodic die-backs and even extinctions. It's basically the same thing.

    109. Re:Go Stephen! by spun · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. Ecosystems aren't designed to serve humanity. Economic systems have no other purpose. When humans manage ecosystems, they take steps to reduce periodic die backs and extinctions. If a herd of cows drop dead, someone done screwed up. You've fallen victim to the is/aught fallacy.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    110. Re:Go Stephen! by fadethepolice · · Score: 1

      The bombing campaign in vietnam was limited because if we marched up to the borders of china we would have started world war three, not because of liberal protests. It was a calculated decision of the republican nixon administration.

    111. Re:Go Stephen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1776330&cid=33469200 You are right, he's all over this thread trolling.

  3. What the hell? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is this on Slashdot?

    I couldn't care less about the Tea Party or Colbert. It isn't real news. It certainly isn't for nerds.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a reason it's tagged with "Idle"

    2. Re:What the hell? by Stavr0 · · Score: 1
      You are now officially ON NOTICE.

      Don't make me put you on the DEAD TO ME list.

    3. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's funny, though. But your truthy-fu is quite impressive.

    4. Re:What the hell? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The person who posted this image is incapable of reading directions. Feel free to publically ridicule him or her."

      Consider yourself ridiculed.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    5. Re:What the hell? by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's in the Politics section. As incredibly depressing as it may be, Glenn Beck crying on camera and Colbert making fun of him represents the height of political discourse these days, so it fits.

      We don't debate things anymore, we have competing demagogues shouting past each other, lying, and using naked appeals to emotion to push their agendas. Beck is the most visible at the moment, but he's certainly not the first nor the last. Hell, they don't even really debate things in the halls of Congress anymore, they just shout their talking points at each other to rile up the extremists on either end of the political spectrum because they're apparently the only ones who still vote.

      Meanwhile, comedians like Colbert try to point out the absurdity of it all, and everyone has a good laugh, and no one changes their behavior. A rally at the Lincoln memorial would accomplish nothing. Beck's followers would either ignore it or use it as fuel to steer even further toward the extreme and follow Beck even closer. Beck's detractors would have a good laugh about it, but they're already convinced Beck is a nutbar so it's preaching to the choir for them.

      On the other hand, if it was well-executed it would probably give Colbert a ratings boost, so at least he and the guys over at Comedy Central would get something out of it.

    6. Re:What the hell? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      And your sig has been domain parked... check those links once a decade or so, please.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    7. Re:What the hell? by Stavr0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, rehost the pic don't hotlink. It was just for the cheap laugh.

    8. Re:What the hell? by atchijov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you really want your kids to learn creationism in school, have 99% of the budget spend on military and hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity? This is what will happen if everyone (including nerds) will keep saying - "That none of my business".

    9. Re:What the hell? by mea37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Tea Party isn't news?

      The group whose dominating and inept control of the conservative voice in 2009 was a key factor in passing the sweeping healthcare reform bill isn't news?

      No, they're news. It's just that no matter which side of the aisle you're on, they're bad news.

    10. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you speak for all of us now? And with certainty to boot.

      What? Other people have opinions, too?

      How novel.

      DIAF.

    11. Re:What the hell? by feepness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really want your kids to learn creationism in school, have 99% of the budget spend on military and hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity? This is what will happen if everyone (including nerds) will keep saying - "That none of my business".

      Don't forget the oceans will rise to swallow the coasts and corporations will take all our rights.

      All because of that party of FEAR!

    12. Re:What the hell? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would serve to accomplish one thing - to show that the so-called "silent majority" the conservatives love to quote so much isn't necessarily as big they paint it out to be. Their opponents are numerous, and not so silent.

    13. Re:What the hell? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      The most depressing part of it all is the enormous fraction of the general public that puts all of its faith in the moronic demagoguery from across the political and social spectrum. Didn't they learn anything in school? Have they no common sense? Do they not have even a rudimentary ability to reason things out? Does everything have to reduce to magical-religious thought and outright superstition?

      This plays so neatly and tidily into the hands of those who suckle with great force at the government teat and have their hands firmly lodged in all of our pockets. These people and organizations are brilliant masters at pushing people's buttons and exploiting us mercilessly.

    14. Re:What the hell? by Klinky · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you're not concerned about the environment & pollution here's an experiment you can try. Go into your garage, make sure all doors are closed, turn your car on... wait...

      Let me know how it goes...

    15. Re:What the hell? by oldspewey · · Score: 1
      • your kids to learn creationism in school
      • have 99% of the budget spend on military
      • hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity
      • oceans will rise to swallow the coasts
      • corporations will take all our rights
      • ???
      • PROFIT!
      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    16. Re:What the hell? by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, you're overreacting. We will still be free to use subtlety and nuance. Teabaggers are unable to detect or comprehend subtlety and nuance.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    17. Re:What the hell? by magnusrex1280 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're not in the loop on this one....it certainly seems like you aren't, given your confusion. Nerds love The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, leastwise all the nerds I work with, are friends with, and that I'm connected to across the wide internet. Maybe the nerds you hang out with aren't into these shows, but I would be surprised to hear that.

    18. Re:What the hell? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You sound like one of those jackass right wing nuts, only the polar opposite.

      Your argument reminds me of the ridiculous points right wingers make about e.g. gay marriage. "Oh my god, if we allow Gay Marriage the next thing you know people will be marrying elephants and having sex with Emus, is that what you want?! Because that's what's going to happen if we don't stop (queue dramatic music)duh-duh-DUH...the GAY AGENDA!"

      You're both ridiculous. Nobody's going to be hunting homeless people or immigrants. Now creationism in school, we need to put a stop to that nonsense, unless it's taught in a philosophy or religious studies class.

    19. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, nerds need to remain pure. It's essential for nerdism. No more posts that cannot be expressed as a formula. Hey all you dirty intellectuals, get off our board.

    20. Re:What the hell? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Since when is the point of comedy to accomplish something? I'd just love to see a stand-up comic hop onto the stage and announce to the audience, "Today, instead of telling jokes, I'm going to organize a letter-writing campaign to help free Tibet," then start passing out letters, envelopes, stamps, and talking point sheets to the audience.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    21. Re:What the hell? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Seeing that Colbert is the nerdiest nerd on TV in the US, maybe you should surrender your nerd card and re-examine your priorities.

    22. Re:What the hell? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to get just the former or is it a package deal?

    23. Re:What the hell? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Why is this on Slashdot?"

      This is the only Insightful comment on here

      Also, Colbert is a comedian, he makes fun of everyone. I watch his shows and he makes fun of the Tea Party as much as he does anyone else but I don't think he's actually against the Tea Party or would "point out the absurdity of the Tea Party"

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    24. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they just shout their talking points at each other to rile up the extremists on either end of the political spectrum because they're apparently the only ones who still vote.

      Actually, the republicans scream/vote to appease the extreme end of the spectrum. The democrats vote to appease the republicans. If the democrats actually listened to the people who elected them the US would be out of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and we'd have a single payer health care system.

    25. Re:What the hell? by feepness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am concerned about pollution. I'm not concerned about the oceans rising up and swallowing the coast.

      It is precisely because I care about the environment that I am concerned about people who conflate caring for the environment with fearmongering.

    26. Re:What the hell? by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity?"

      HELL YES. Bring this on, immediately.

      Seriously, why do people insist on trying to equate illegals with immigrants? The first act of an illegal is disrespect our national and its law, their very method of entry into the nation demonstrates they are unfit to enter our society. The first act of an immigrant is to show respect for our nation and culture and to undergo significant (but not unreasonable) efforts to become a part of it.

      There is a reason why legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture while illegal immigrants form pockets of what they consider to still be their culture.

    27. Re:What the hell? by mattack2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sheldon Cooper is the nerdiest nerd on TV in the US.

    28. Re:What the hell? by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Didn't they learn anything in school? Have they no common sense?

      School as defined and run but the US Department of Education? Hmm, give me a moment....

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    29. Re:What the hell? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Because smart people "get" Colbert and laugh at Beck (and the people who "get" Beck, of course) Lot's of smart people are here.

    30. Re:What the hell? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If you're not concerned about the environment & pollution here's an experiment you can try. Go into your garage, make sure all doors are closed, turn your car on... wait...

      Those are some awesome rhetorical skills, there. Wow. Here's a variation: find a spot where far-reaching, comprehensive environmental regulation and changes in people's general attitudes have resulted in changing a toxic, ugly body of water into a clean, thriving, healthy body of water. Excellent. Now, hold your head under that water for several minutes... wait...

      Oh, I see. Your experiment proposal is just a bit of snarky BS that doesn't actually point out any causal relationships, meaningfully comment on actual idealogical or real-life policy complexities, or do anything other than show you to be a shrill, foot-stamping sound-biter. A Prius idleing in your garage is going to kill you too, right? Better lump all the Prius owners in with the environment haters, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    31. Re:What the hell? by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

      Thanks to the Daily Show and the Report, I follow much more closely what is going on at the local level and national level. I am a bit darker in that I am starting to think another civil war is coming between Jesus freaks, with the ones that profit off them and EVERYONE to the left of them. I see a 10:1 Liberals:Jesus Freaks since the liberals don't like guns.

      --
      6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    32. Re:What the hell? by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Seriously, why do people insist on trying to equate illegals with immigrants?

      Because if they don't blur the distinction, much of their agenda becomes entirely too easy to spot, even by idiots.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    33. Re:What the hell? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Debate died when Lee Atwater pondered whether or not to have a knife in Willie Horton's hand in the ads.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    34. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most people don't understand that the main reason for forming a government is to defend your rights, and freedom. the government is not your mother or father. they are not there to pick you up when you stub your knee or pay your mortgage when your too stupid to purchase a house you can afford. you don't have a right to heath care, a home, food. they are not suppose to manage your retirement(Social Security). so yes the military budget should be the largest percentage of the federal budget because what will it matter what you spent on everything else when no you are forced to speak chinese and listen to chairman Mao because we got taken over. in the words of Thomas Jefferson "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." and by the way you talk about creationism like it is lunacy and replace it with the theory of evolution which is just that a theory which means it has never been proven. when you can logically disprove creationism and prover evolution where it become a law then you can start to talk.

    35. Re:What the hell? by Klinky · · Score: 1

      A Prius is a Toyota, so it might accelerate you into the garage of your wall.

      Besides my example being a snarkey attempt at causing suicide, it can be extrapolated to mean a world where clean air is displaced with carbon monoxide is unlivable. Your example suggests a world where clean air is displaced by water is unlivable. Both situations are equally uninhabitable circumstances, although Kevin Costner might be able to survive your scenario.

    36. Re:What the hell? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Here's a variation: find a spot where far-reaching, comprehensive environmental regulation and changes in people's general attitudes have resulted in changing a toxic, ugly body of water into a clean, thriving, healthy body of water.

      Okay, so go to Lake Erie, then what?

      Excellent. Now, hold your head under that water for several minutes... wait...

      Wait, how does that fit into the analogy?

      A Prius idleing in your garage is going to kill you too, right? Better lump all the Prius owners in with the environment haters, right?

      Suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning from a *Prius*? Wow, that would take bloody forever. Better bring some sudoku puzzles, a long book, etc.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    37. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats worse than an overly political Nerd?
      An apolitical Nerd...

    38. Re:What the hell? by Klinky · · Score: 1

      Or the wall of your garage, depending on how you're feeling.

    39. Re:What the hell? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      It certainly isn't for nerds.

      I suspect you never actually got a nerd card, but if you did, you would have to turn it in now.

    40. Re:What the hell? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Who shit in your corn flakes, grumpy?

    41. Re:What the hell? by mattholimeau · · Score: 1

      Also, Colbert is a comedian, he makes fun of everyone. ... but I don't think he's actually against the Tea Party or would "point out the absurdity of the Tea Party"

      Are you serious? Seems like a "woooosh" as to anything Colbert does. His shtick is to mock the right by pretending to be one of them. His comedy is very left wing.

    42. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People equate illegals with immigrants because they're not worried about people coming in and disrespecting our laws, they're worried about people coming in and changing our culture. Also a factor is that THEY TOOK OUR JERBS! It's doubly easy to conflate illegals with legals because of skin color. I'm not saying I can't make the distinction, but honestly the problem is not that they got here illegally. It's that they're here at all.

    43. Re:What the hell? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      This is as good as it will get. Politics have been dropping in quality big time for decades. Nixon was probably the last true Republican and Cater the last true democrat. Since then it's just the quality has dropped right through the floor.

    44. Re:What the hell? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Actually, schools are generally run locally. Depicting the DoE as the culprit is a red herring. I think the problem goes far wider and deeper, well into the realm of the practically intractable, at least in the short and medium term. US commercial popular culture is probably far more a factor than whether schools are run well or not.

    45. Re:What the hell? by migla · · Score: 1

      >Since when is the point of comedy to accomplish something?

      I don't know since when, but IMO, comedy that doesn't have a message of some kind isn't as much fun. Bill Hicks is (was) a veritable preacher and one of the best comedians I've come across.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    46. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What specific effects of pollution are you concerned about if not sea level rise? When you are basically saying "pollution is bad, we should stop it" that's a religion. If there are specific reasons you are against pollution you should say what they are, it's not obvious to everyone that all forms of pollution are a bad thing. Lots of people "know" that gay marriage is wrong and since it is so obvious don't bother with coming up with rational arguments to support their position.

    47. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The person who posted this image is incapable of reading directions. Feel free to publically ridicule him or her. (Please do not HotLink the OnNotice boards)"

      Haahaaa. Directions....

    48. Re:What the hell? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      This. Pity I haven't mod points.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    49. Re:What the hell? by doppe1 · · Score: 1

      If you're not concerned about the environment & pollution here's an experiment you can try. Go into your garage, make sure all doors are closed, turn your car on... wait...

      Let me know how it goes...

      I did exactly as you said, I went into my garage, made sure all the doors are closed. Turned on my Tesla. I'm waiting, now what?

    50. Re:What the hell? by tftp · · Score: 1

      Do you really want your kids to have hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity?

      While that is being debated, illegal immigrants in the USA are hunting you.

    51. Re:What the hell? by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 1

      Your city doesn't have a Chinatown?

    52. Re:What the hell? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      There is a reason why legal immigrants integrate into america

      They do? So, what, you don't have Chinatowns? Little Italy's? Isolated Muslim, African, Cuban, or "legal" Latino communities? Really??

      Let me guess... you live in white suburbia, don't you?

    53. Re:What the hell? by feepness · · Score: 1

      In the context of the discussion I was trying to be brief, but I am concerned about the long term (20 to 50 years) safety of our water and food supply. Air quality as well.

    54. Re:What the hell? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "No, they're news. It's just that no matter which side of the aisle you're on, they're bad news."

      They are modern Christian Conservatism in all its glory, and proud to claim it. Take a good, long look.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    55. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global Warming and Sea Level Rise is the ultimate Republican goal, thus still using oil, driving big SUV's and trucks. Think about Sea Level Rise... where are the Blue states located? The majority of the Red states?

    56. Re:What the hell? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      you should care: if Glen Beck and the Tea Partiers gain control, the Internet is doomed. Headed for North Korean-esque thought control

      The left has historically (at least in the last 30 years) been a lot more in line with that tactic than the right has!

    57. Re:What the hell? by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party isn't news?

      The group whose dominating and inept control of the conservative voice in 2009 was a key factor in passing the sweeping healthcare reform bill isn't news?

      So that's how the kids are spinning it these days? You apparently missed it, but a Democrat controlled Congress and presidency was the sole "key factor". Also, you exaggerate the influence of the group in 2009. My take is that they were just another bit of noise to the Republican leadership until they helped take some special elections (a key win was in early 2010 with a Republican as senator in Massachusetts).

      No, they're news. It's just that no matter which side of the aisle you're on, they're bad news.

      Compared to what? I thumbed through a bunch of your previous posts to attempt to get some idea of where you were coming from. Still no clue. Merely being bad news to nebulous groups doesn't mean anything to me. A political movement that is beneficial overall will in a high rent-seeking environment such as the US, be bad news to a lot of people.

    58. Re:What the hell? by khallow · · Score: 1

      In the context of the discussion I was trying to be brief, but I am concerned about the long term (20 to 50 years) safety of our water and food supply. Air quality as well.

      I don't know about your country, but the US fixed that in the 70s. It may be less than desired, but the safety over the above time frame is assured.

    59. Re:What the hell? by DamienRBlack · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the government wasn't five years backlogged on immigration requests, more people would come here legally.

    60. Re:What the hell? by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Ah, so the local Tea Party rep takes notice, eh?

      'So that's how the kids are spinning it these days?'

      "These days"? Actually, those of us who were paying attention have been saying this since mid-2009. As soon as we started hearing extremeist anti-reform rhetoric, we predicted that it would hijack the debate and keep serious conservative objections from being raised and incorporated into the final measure. And it did.

      But hey, sure, if it makes you happy, go on thinking something that was foreseen and predicted - and then came to pass - is just modern revisionist spin.

      'You apparently missed it, but a Democrat controlled Congress and presidency was the sole "key factor".'

      Whatever helps you sleep at night.

      'Also, you exaggerate the influence of the group in 2009. My take is that they were just another bit of noise to the Republican leadership until they helped take some special elections (a key win was in early 2010 with a Republican as senator in Massachusetts).'

      So that's how the kids are spinning it these days? The swing against the party in power at midterm has been, in historical context, unremarkable. They haven't "helped" the Republican party nearly as much as they'd have anyone believe.

      'I thumbed through a bunch of your previous posts'

      Wow, you must have a lot of time on your hands.

      '...to attempt to get some idea of where you were coming from. Still no clue.'

      I agree; you have no clue.

      Well, sorry I don't fit neatly under one of your pre-conceived labels. Learn how to think for yourself and you'll have an easier time understanding those of us who already do.

      'Merely being bad news to nebulous groups doesn't mean anything to me'

      Well, damn, my entire post was predicated on the assumption that it would mean something to you. I'm all torn up over this.

      And really? "Nebulous groups"? You don't know what "both sides of the aisle" means? Ok, fine, I'll help you out:

      They are a deliberate nuisance to those with liberal views, and an unintentional menace to those with conservative views.

    61. Re:What the hell? by realnrh · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Those illegal immigrants who made Chinatowns and Jewish areas in American cities are just asking to be hunted down! Oh, and let's not forget Little Havana down in Florida, or all those darn Irish bars all over the place! For that matter, those traitorous Southerners are real ungrateful twerps, insisting on clinging to their outmoded racist culture when they were let back into the US, and their descendants STILL haven't adopted American cultural norms yet!

      --
      Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
    62. Re:What the hell? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the government wasn't five years backlogged on immigration requests, more people would come here legally.

      This somewhat critically misstates the problem.

      It is not that the government is "backlogged" on immigration requests, which suggests that there is a pile of paperwork that just isn't getting processed because of insufficient resources, and if the government would just process the requests it has and execute the existing policy efficiently, there wouldn't be a problem.

      The issue is that the US has an immigration system that involves per country limits on immigration (as I recall, part of that is a limit that no one country may have more than 5% of the people admitted in each year in any of the numerically-limited, relationship-based immigration categories -- note that H1Bs aren't part of this) which results in a surplus of requests from prospective immigrants who are legally qualified to immigrate resulting in long (more than a decade in some cases) wait for admission in certain categories from certain countries (this is true, IIRC, in all of the numerically-limited relationship-based categories for Mexico, as well as certain categories from India and some other countries.)

      You could reduce, though not eliminate, the problem of new illegal immigration overnight without changing general immigration policy or overall legal immigration limits, simply by using overall limits without limited per-country allocation.

    63. Re:What the hell? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      The first act of an illegal is disrespect our national and its law,

      Which is why they should be hunted down and murdered... because that shows so much respect for our values and laws, such as, y'know, not murdering people.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    64. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Large swaths of Arizona park lands are posted by the Obama administration as conceded and controlled by cartel drug members. The Executive branch of our government has given state land to the Mexican drug lords. Apparently they have more rights than citizens, now, too.

    65. Re:What the hell? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      What part of 'parts of their former culture' do you not get? The large influx of Chinese immigrants is an exception because there was no legal vs illegal immigration when the bulk of it happened. Even so, the vast majority of Asian immigrants have integrated into (and helped shape) our culture. That kind of pocket and slow integration is the reason we have immigration laws today.

      "Oh, and let's not forget Little Havana down in Florida"

      Yes I lived there. I'd hardly call the mass influx of Cubans who came en mass illegally and seized a portion of US territory legal immigrants.

      "For that matter, those traitorous Southerners are real ungrateful twerps"

      Huh? Oh hey I know. Lets build a blatant strawman like that anything I said depended on there being no immigration or local variances in culture and then beat the shit out of it!

    66. Re:What the hell? by Glock27 · · Score: 1

      It's in the Politics section. As incredibly depressing as it may be, Glenn Beck crying on camera and Colbert making fun of him represents the height of political discourse these days, so it fits.

      I quite disagree with that assessment, actually. Then, I'm a Sarah Palin fan and respect the founding documents, so I doubt we have a lot of common ground.

      Hell, they don't even really debate things in the halls of Congress anymore, they just shout their talking points at each other to rile up the extremists on either end of the political spectrum because they're apparently the only ones who still vote.

      It's worse than that. The politicians can't even be bothered to read the legislation they're voting on, which affects all of us. That is simply wrong, by any standard. Thus, the "throw the bums out" mentality which looks to be the decisive edge in the coming election.

      I hope more people will try to improve themselves and actually learn rather than immersing in popular culture, which is ultimately an exercise in mediocrity, at best.

      Meanwhile, comedians like Colbert try to point out the absurdity of it all, and everyone has a good laugh, and no one changes their behavior.

      I think that analysis is simply wrong. Watch what happens come November. :-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    67. Re:What the hell? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "our values and laws, such as, y'know, not murdering people"

      It's probably best to speak for yourself on what values you think 'we' have. Your values may call execution a crime but that isn't a blanket national stance there are entire states that execute criminals on a regular basis.

    68. Re:What the hell? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      It's probably best to speak for yourself on what values you think 'we' have. Your values may call execution a crime but that isn't a blanket national stance there are entire states that execute criminals on a regular basis.

      I know what laws we have, and hunting humans is not legal. Execution would be an action carried out by the government after a trial. The proposal that you were agreeing to was the "recreational" hunting of illegal immigrants, not execution by the state.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    69. Re:What the hell? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "You could reduce, though not eliminate, the problem of new illegal immigration overnight without changing general immigration policy or overall legal immigration limits, simply by using overall limits without limited per-country allocation."

      Almost. Those policies are there for a valid reason and it is refusing to admit it that keeps real immigration reform from happening. It is perfectly valid to not want mass influxes of non-native citizens moving into communities and seizing political power and forcing the existing legal residents to move or be subject to the views of an alien culture.

      If you want to open up legal immigration then open it up but offering lifetime visas that must be renewed with language proficiency tests, criminal background reviews, and non-delinquent taxes every 10 years or so. These initial immigrants would never be given political power to vote in any level of city, county, state, or federal government but otherwise would enjoy the same status and rights as citizens. Definitively put a stop to Spanish classes and efforts to add additional national languages in the same bill. Immigrants are supposed to learn English and US History BEFORE being allowed into the US. You don't need to expend efforts to provide services in other languages to people who speak English.

      Basically, this delays the political impact of mass immigration by a single generation but would prevent the motive for illegal immigration.

    70. Re:What the hell? by treeves · · Score: 1

      I don't give a damn about the environment so I tried your little "experiment" and now the batteries are completely dead in my Chevy Volt! Thanks a lot, jerk!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    71. Re:What the hell? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, but when more than half the people in the all the countries south of Rio Grande/Bravo live with less than one dollar a day the offer of a chance to work in USA even for 10 dollars a day is extremely compelling, with papers or not. Immigration is an economic problem more than anything else. A USA without migrants is a USA without jobs to offer or a too poor USA that nobody wants to go there. Illegal immigrants should pay a fine high enough to be a good punishment but low enough to be paid by honest means. Also, I think that the funds from those fines could be used to pay a reimbursement to legal migrants. The point must be to keep honest people honest.

      You could say that we* should fix our problems ourselves and you are right, but, the main problem with Latin-American countries is that almost all have rulers more worried with keeping the people in Washington happy than in improving the supposedly "independent" nations they rule. And we can't get rid of those bastards because the US will send money, weapons and soldiers to keep their puppets in place, even if our countries get destroyed in the process because lives of brown skinned people are less worth than the life of an NYC street dog. Our resources on the other hand...

      For example, the bosses of the murderous Mexican gang of "Los Zetas" were originally Mexican special forces trained in the (in)famous School of Americas in the USA, the American taxpayer should be proud because those guys put to use every fucking disgusting thing they learned there on civilians, police and of course, illegal immigrants. But, since knowledge is like fire, now all the gangs use those methods too.

      *I'm Mexican

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    72. Re:What the hell? by khallow · · Score: 1

      "These days"? Actually, those of us who were paying attention have been saying this since mid-2009. As soon as we started hearing extremeist anti-reform rhetoric, we predicted that it would hijack the debate and keep serious conservative objections from being raised and incorporated into the final measure. And it did.

      "Anti-reform" rhetoric? What reform are they "anti"? Instead, what I've been hearing, and I've been paying attention, is that they are pro-reform. What they wish to reform is the US government and how much it spends. And I see that you claim no true Scots^H^H^H^H^H conservative could possibly be a member of the tea party. I'd have to disagree.

      Also, I think you're insincerely playing word games here. In my view, there has been no reform effort at the US level in the past two years of any kind. No "serious conservative" would make the error of claiming otherwise. Health care "reform"? My view is that it'll raise the cost of health care and reduce the number of people with health insurance. Financial "reform"? Digging the hole deeper, increasing government power, while making the US less economically viable and competitive compared to other countries. The next bubble will happen anyway. But now, the US government has more incentive and power than ever before to make it as big as possible (in order to scoop the increased tax revenue from capital gains and income). The huge funds spent to prop up failed businesses and failed states aren't reform either. Basically, I see the Obama administration and Democrat Congress trying the tired, worthless socialist ideas of the past century once again, only cutting much bigger checks this time. That doesn't smell like reform. It smells like failure.

      Yet somehow the tea party people are "anti-reform". Please, point me to the reform. Please, point me to the "serious conservatives" who have been thwarted in their do-gooding because US citizens are getting riled up over the mess that's being imposed.

    73. Re:What the hell? by feepness · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your country, but the US fixed that in the 70s. It may be less than desired, but the safety over the above time frame is assured.

      I think this is something that merits constant vigilance, but yes, I'm not mentioning it hourly.

    74. Re:What the hell? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your country, but the US fixed that in the 70s. It may be less than desired, but the safety over the above time frame is assured.

      I think this is something that merits constant vigilance, but yes, I'm not mentioning it hourly.

      Good, we're on the same page. I just want to add that constant vigilance is part of the 70s strategy. Vigilance on the part of the US voter that we stay on strategy is something else and probably what you meant.

    75. Re:What the hell? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Those policies are there for a valid reason and it is refusing to admit it that keeps real immigration reform from happening.

      No, what keeps real immigration reform from happening is:
      1. Many of the people who claim to want some kind of real immigration reform (esp. politicians) actually don't, they just like to say they do. Having a broken system that everyone hates to keep blaming things on and using as an excuse to sell policies that aren't actually aimed at fixing the things that cause the problems that people experience, but that advance other interests, is politically useful.

      2. Of the people that do want "real immigration reform", they don't actually share the same values, or perceive the same problems, and the "real immigration reform" that any one subgroup wants isn't just different policy than other subgroups want, its directed at diametrically opposed goals.

      There is a subgroup which is fundamentally anti-immigrant, and sees the fundamental problem as the level of immigration, and therefore isn't interested in reforming the system of legal immigration, they are interested only in trying to find a magic bullet that will make the existing legal limits more practical to enforce.

      There are a number of overlapping subgroups that are fundametally motivated by racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious hatred and see the fundamental problem as being too much of the "wrong kind" of people immigrating. Tactically these groups often align with each other and the preceding group, but they are distinct.

      There's a group that views the basic principles underlying the family-relationship-based categories at the core of the main part of our legal immigration system as fundamentally sound, but finds that various elements of our current immigration policy undercut the purpose of that policy (which is in the recognition of the strength of family bonds and leveraging of them to anchor American identity in immigrants.)

      There's a group that sees our current immigration policy as problematic because of the cost of enforcement compared to the perceived benefit, whether or not they share any of the other groups preferences on the overall principles.

      There's a group that sees the main problem in our immigration policy is that it doesn't do enough to serve business owner's interest in cheap labor.

      All of these groups want "real immigration reform" of one kind or another, and all of them are fertile targets for politicians who want to blame problems on the lack of such reform. But once you get into the specifics of a proposed reform, or even the goals it should seek, almost anything you propose is going to be seen as at best irrelevant and at worst counterproductive by more people than will support it, unless you are clever and vague and manage to let everyone read their own preferences into your vague pronouncements.

      f you want to open up legal immigration then open it up but offering lifetime visas that must be renewed with language proficiency tests, criminal background reviews, and non-delinquent taxes every 10 years or so. These initial immigrants would never be given political power to vote in any level of city, county, state, or federal government but otherwise would enjoy the same status and rights as citizens.

      If you reread GP, you will note that I never anywhere in it advocated increasing the overall level of legal immigration, I advocated maintaining the current overall limits but balancing the country-by-country limits so that the number of immigrants allowed in each limited category by country would be aligned with the number of applicants from each country, so that you don't cause really long delays in the countries that have the most otherwise-qualified prospective immigrants. A (for instance) 2 year wait everywhere would create much less pressure to evade the system than having negligible waits from most of the world, but decade plus waiting lists from a handful of countries

    76. Re:What the hell? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      no matter which side of the aisle you're on...

      This kinda suggests that there are only two political stances to have (and that they're Democrat and Republican).

      A better analogy for political attention would be two sides of a coin. The Tea Party is the edge, and the thicker it is, the more times the attention/coin lands on it.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    77. Re:What the hell? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Since when is the point of comedy to accomplish something?"

      Since medieval times when the jester was given a privlaged role in the king's court.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    78. Re:What the hell? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      I hope you meant "the latter," or more correctly "the last one."

    79. Re:What the hell? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You just don't get it. Illegal immigrants are not in a position to carefully weigh the moral and ethical issues surrounding their illegal entry into the U.S. They are typically not sitting in a middle class suburban home in Latin America (or wherever) stroking their chin pondering the depths of the dilemma. More commonly, they are shit-poor with a huge, imminent economic disaster bearing down on them and on their loved ones. It is sheer desperation that brings them to come over and risk life and limb, rape and robbery, with absolutely no certainty of a positive outcome, knowing that they will get a very poorly paid job at which they will have to work practically like slaves under the constant menace of violent deportation.

      The insistence on the technical illegality of their entry and presence in our country, and the spewing of pious rants about it are the shallow musings of simpletons. What would inspire you to walk across the Sonoran Desert for 48 hours guided by heavily armed murderous mobsters? You wouldn't do it. You don't have even a remote understanding of what leads others to do it. You are a simple-minded tea bagger talking out his ass, nothing more.

    80. Re:What the hell? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Why is this on Slashdot?

      I couldn't care less about the Tea Party or Colbert. It isn't real news. It certainly isn't for nerds.

      Considering how some of the plans of the Tea Party will affect us geeks, I care. Considering that Beck's numerous hate speeches affect either my friends or myself, I care.

    81. Re:What the hell? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      "Why is this on Slashdot?"

      This is the only Insightful comment on here

      Also, Colbert is a comedian, he makes fun of everyone. I watch his shows and he makes fun of the Tea Party as much as he does anyone else but I don't think he's actually against the Tea Party or would "point out the absurdity of the Tea Party"

      Uh, what? He points out their absurdity all the time. If you haven't noticed that, then perhaps you dont understand his humor and sarcasm and wit.

    82. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But to better integrate into American society, any newcomers really SHOULD game the system as thoroughly as they can. If the most powerful people in America do it on a regular basis (in fact, maintain their fortunes via this exact system; think CEO golden parachutes), that is all the justification necessary to say "Screw it" and sneak through the borders. After all, gaming systems for your own benefit is the American Way!

    83. Re:What the hell? by BlindRobin · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The best evidence for economics being the driver is that since there is recession at the moment, immigration (legal or not)across the boarder is at it's lowest rate in quite a long time. (I'm a Texan)

    84. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not concerned about the oceans rising up and swallowing the coast.

      As a Dutch person, can I just say that is one of the things that I am, in fact, rather concerned about that? Sea levels are actually rising, you know.

      Thankfully our government is making plans for improving the sea defences, but at the pace they tend to make decisions these days, it may take decades :P

    85. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some respect for your fellow human being you have there. Seriously, do you think illegal immigrants come here just to disrespect us? Do you think they even think they are disrespecting us?

    86. Re:What the hell? by JBaustian · · Score: 1

      At a certain point we will have to get serious about our country's problems. We will need more tools than irony and sarcasm to solve these problems, and they will not go away on their own while we have a laugh.

      Also, the Restoring Honor rally turned out not to be political, or at least not much. I was surprised, I thought it would be. It was more of a religious revival -- which, in a way, is what the March on Washington in 1963 was also about.

      There may be political consequences though, but long-term consequences... the same as the MLK rally.

      A couple other comments. Did you notice that thirty minutes after the Restoring Honor event, the Mall looked like no one had been there -- all the trash and garbage had been hauled away. After the Obama inauguration, it looked like Woodstock, or after 10 days into a garbage haulers' strike.

      And lastly, there were no cars set on fire, no broken windows, no attacks on police, no teargas, as you might see at any leftwing event where more than 1000 attend.

    87. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you reread GP, you will note that I never anywhere in it advocated increasing the overall level of legal immigration,"

      Neither did I.

      "I would say that any plan that both made it easier to immigrate and made it harder for immigrants to become citizens, thus weakening immigrants ties to the country and stake in the legitimate political process, would be a recipe for disaster."

      I have to disagree. You aren't weakening their stake or their ties to the country you are simply making them longer term. I think you'll find that people (at least the ones worth having in the first place) are at least as attached if not more attached to the future of their children than themselves and their children will be citizens.

      The only thing this ultimately does is (to use the biggest group of illegal immigrants as an example) prevent a mass influx of Mexican immigrants from moving into a small town in rural Illinois and then immediately seizing political power.

      Historically the first thing a large flux of immigrants does when given political power is use that power to change things to be more like home to make their transition easier. They do things like legislate services in their former languages and even change criminal policies to be closer to what they are used to. Their children are citizens but essentially are raised in Mexico (or whatever) so they grow up as Mexicans with a SSN.

      Offsetting political power by a generation prevents this. It requires immigrants be immersed in our native language and legal policies and raise their children in that environment while not preventing the parents from instilling values important to them.

    88. Re:What the hell? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Dead is dead, it doesn't particularly matter how one goes about it if you are killing someone for a crime by all means enjoy a little sport.

      In any case you might enjoy this article. The evidence seems to indicate you are the only one who needs to read it.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

    89. Re:What the hell? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Your assertion that the poor have no morals or ethical standards is insulting to someone who has lived most of his life poor.

      "The insistence on the technical illegality of their entry and presence in our country"

      The insistence on trivializing a very serious and immoral act and spewing of pious rants about it are the shallow musings of simpletons.

      "What would inspire you to walk across the Sonoran Desert for 48 hours guided by heavily armed murderous mobsters?"

      Don't know I haven't needed to do it. But the heavily armed murderous mobsters apparently take the stroll on a regular basis so it can't be that bad.

      "knowing that they will get a very poorly paid job at which they will have to work practically like slaves"

      I have an illegal immigrant working for me. She comes every couple weeks and cleans the house. She makes about $60/hr and has a long list of things she doesn't do which includes straightening up. The burden that poor woman suffers making more money than I do and doing less work.

    90. Re:What the hell? by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      I'd argue with you but there can be no arguing with someone who deludes himself, so instead I tell you:

      Go fuck yourself.

      With love, a legal immigrant who became an american.

    91. Re:What the hell? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      We would at least have a public option, but single payer is debatable, since there were no more than a small handful of Congressmen who supported it. Even the President himself wasn't enthused about single payer, remember?

      Disclaimer: I do recall that the public overwhelmingly supported the public option, but I don't remember the numbers on single payer, assuming any of the pollsters took that data. I'm sure both of us will agree that the fact that no one ultimately pushed for the public option in the Senate is one of the greatest travesties of the health care reform law.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    92. Re:What the hell? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      There is a reason why legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture while illegal immigrants form pockets of what they consider to still be their culture.

      Care to elaborate on that? I could easily claim that while legal immigrants tend to "integrate" to a certain extent, they largely treat their ethnic heritage with pride and generally commingle with other foreign nationals, immigrants, and citizens of common ancestry. To a certain extent, they're forming a "pocket of what they consider to still be their culture"-- if this were not the case, Little Tokyo, the many Chinatowns, Little Saigon, etc. would not exist. Conversely, I can dispute your claim that illegals isolate themselves from the rest of American society because (a) you didn't support that claim, and (b) in order to support themselves, let alone their families, they would have to interact with American society by accepting jobs.

      Yes, the illegals broke the law. Yes, they need to leave the country and (assuming they sincerely want to contribute) enter the country legitimately. The arguments against hardline tactics such as hunting them (the GP presumably meant with vigilante groups in camouflage and hunting rifles) generally do not say anything about whether illegals broke the law because it's irrelevant to the objection.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    93. Re:What the hell? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "I could easily claim that while legal immigrants tend to "integrate" to a certain extent, they largely treat their ethnic heritage with pride and generally commingle with other foreign nationals, immigrants, and citizens of common ancestry."

      I didn't say legal immigrants lose their identity and conform. I said:

      "legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture"

      A legal immigrant is an American. They raise their children as Americans. They want to be part of America if they didn't they wouldn't have gone through the hassle of respecting our rules about coming here. That doesn't mean they have to forget where they came from.

      "if this were not the case, Little Tokyo, the many Chinatowns, Little Saigon, etc. would not exist"

      I already pointed out nothing I said conflicted with these. But these aren't pockets of isolation. If you go to Chinatown people still know how to speak English. Those who can speak English won't refuse to speak it. It isn't about throwing away ones culture it is about having respect for the culture you are becoming a part of and the chinese (in general, though there are plenty of illegal chinese immigrants) came legally so their first act was not to slap our nation in the face. Even so, Chinatowns are a symptom of the effects of mass immigration and are part of why we have immigration quotas today.

      "Conversely, I can dispute your claim that illegals isolate themselves from the rest of American society because (a) you didn't support that claim"

      I wouldn't think it needs supported for an American? Large swaths of the southwest and Los Angeles are filled with people who came illegally or were raised by illegal aliens. People who consider themselves Mexicans and consider the land they occupy to rightfully belong to Mexico. They hate the government of Mexico but blame the US for keeping that government in power. They see themselves as fleeing poverty and not Mexico and they come here because it is where the wealth is but believe the wealth is here largely because the US intentionally keeps Mexico impoverished. For an example see some of the other responses to my post.

      Another example is Miami aka Little Cuba. The city is filled people who are part of a mass illegal migration to the United States. That this aligned with our political stance at the time and was sanctioned AFTERWARD doesn't change the intent. Cubans do not hate America or feel it all belongs to them, they simply feel that South Florida belongs to them. Even second generation Cubans who speak perfect fluent English will refuse to speak it in many cases. Demanding someone assist them in Spanish, then resorting to hand gestures if that fails, and when that gets frustrating finally breaking down to use their perfect English. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this first hand in Miami.

      "The arguments against hardline tactics such as hunting them (the GP presumably meant with vigilante groups in camouflage and hunting rifles) generally do not say anything about whether illegals broke the law because it's irrelevant to the objection."

      No it is an intentional misdirection. The GP didn't say anything about hunting immigrants. As for the hardline tactics, the GP presumably was being http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facetious

    94. Re:What the hell? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "The group whose dominating and inept control of the conservative voice in 2009 was a key factor in passing the sweeping healthcare reform bill isn't news?"

      I don't know if you got the memo, but Democrats won the presidency and both houses in 2008.
      I believe that the Democrats controlling both houses and the presidency was THE key factor in passing the sweeping healthcare reform bill.

      And if you're looking to point blame, blame the dominating and inept REPUBLICAN congress and presidency before them that guaranteed they'd win in 2008.

      --
      -Styopa
    95. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not unreasonable? Lies. Utter lies. The US's immigration system is nothing but unreasonable. I've learned this since I've been looking at leaving this country and moving to the UK, and their immigration system is very straightforward. "Got a degree? Speak English? Either a skilled worker or a student or a nanny? OK!" It's a simple points-based system. You get enough points, you're in. It takes a few months, tops. 3 years there and you can apply for permanent residence (which they call indefinite leave to remain).

      The US? Have a read of this post by a woman whose fiancee is trying to move to the US to marry her. If you are a child, and your parents have permanent residence here, you have to wait 5-7 years to get a green card. Ditto if your husband is a permanent resident. How could you deal with 5-7 years away from your spouse? If you're 18 and your parent is a permanent resident, maybe you'll see them again in 14 years. Unless you're married, in which case, screw you.

      No, the US's immigration system IS NOT REASONABLE. It is not fair. I'm left wondering why the hell anyone would want to move to a place whose laws are so clearly built on hate for foreigners.

      Posted as AC because session cookies seem to be FUBAR. I login, and it goes to the front page instead of back to comment screen. I go to the comment screen, and it shows me logged out again. Argh. Dear /.: stop breaking!

    96. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberals don't cling to guns, but they know that they are useful tools.

    97. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increased spending on corporations, wars, and enforcing a small minority's extremist religious views? Cutting taxes without cutting spending? Cutting government jobs during a recession?

      Those are some real sane viewpoints there.

      Or we can have Obama bringing the US into the current century by emulating the tried and successful programs being used in every other civilized country.

      Tough choice...

  4. Ignore the Troll by al3k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems like 3/4th of the publicity Glenn Beck gets is from people calling him a raging idiot. Maybe if we just stop paying attention to him, and Jon Stewart stops making fun of him every single show, he might just go away when he realizes most people don't care about the crap he spews out of that hole he calls a mouth.

    1. Re:Ignore the Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just like Hitler went away when Americans ignored WW1.

    2. Re:Ignore the Troll by rotide · · Score: 1

      You seem to have missed the point of "Comedy Central" and satire.

    3. Re:Ignore the Troll by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      Comedy Central used to be a little more "give it to both sides"-y.

      Anymore, it is just in-jokes for liberals. Disappointing.

    4. Re:Ignore the Troll by rotide · · Score: 1

      What's really disappointing is watching someone try to politicize a satire show on "Comedy Central".

    5. Re:Ignore the Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does Hitler have to do with WW1 ?

    6. Re:Ignore the Troll by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I guess that -1 flamebait is an analog for -1 retarded?

    7. Re:Ignore the Troll by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

      You stopped watching during the Bush years, didn't you? Comedians tend to make fun of those in power. Comedy Central ridicules Obama and the Democrats plenty, now that they are the ones in power.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:Ignore the Troll by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both sides still get it pretty regularly.

      But let's be honest, there isn't a liberal Glenn Beck. There just isn't anyone even in that league in terms of humor value. You have to go where the jokes are, and a guy who writes crazy conspiracy crap on a chalkboard while crying is a gold mine.

      Even if you somehow secretly cloned, say, President Obama and raised him in a secret lab to be the worst parts of everything his detractors claim him to be, then somehow swapped him for the real president, the result would still not be the comedy fodder of a Glenn Beck.

    9. Re:Ignore the Troll by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is it their fault all the good fun is to be had pointing out how hypocritical and untalented the Right Wing is? If you want to watch jokes (try to be) made at the expense of the Establishment/Left, just watch Saturday Night Live (you may or may not laugh)...

    10. Re:Ignore the Troll by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Satire.. that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

    11. Re:Ignore the Troll by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      The ruthless and punishing terms of the armistice, and the ensuing economic disaster in Germany during the 1920s, are widely credited as setting the stage for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. The rest, as they say, is history.

    12. Re:Ignore the Troll by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what you mean. rotide seems to have used the word properly. What's your beef? Make sure to look it up in a dictionary before you respond.

    13. Re:Ignore the Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler was the greatest troll of all time. I mean, the Jews are still biting on that whole Holocaust thing.

    14. Re:Ignore the Troll by rotide · · Score: 1

      Really?

      satire
      –noun
      1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

      Seems to mean exactly what I thought as that's exactly what Colbert/Stewart do...

      Maybe you meant to say "it doesn't mean what I think I means" and in that case, you would probably be correct.

    15. Re:Ignore the Troll by sarhjinian · · Score: 1

      Truly cringe-worthy liberals don't get enough funding to be prominent.

      If you crazy and right wing, there's always certain slices of the population (eg, Big Religion and some parts of Big Business) who will underwrite you. Crazy left-wingers get support by... who again? You might get a few bucks from the Marxist-Leninist Daily and perhaps corkboard space at the local health food store, but there's just not enough money on the extreme left to raise someone to Beck's level.

      Or, to put it another way: The left-wing demagogue gets airtime on college radio and open mic night at the artists' cafe; the right-wing demagogue gets airtime on Fox and at churches whose congregations runs in the thousands and tithe as much as the GDP of some African nations.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    16. Re:Ignore the Troll by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Funny

      You obviously have never seen any of Keith Olberman's political rants.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    17. Re:Ignore the Troll by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Count the number of times John Stewart makes direct fun of a Republican, then rewatch an episode and count the number of times he makes fun of a Democrat. Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives. (Colbert is a little more middle but still ridicules Republicans more.) Comedy Central is just as left-leaning as CNN and MSNBC.

      --
      When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
    18. Re:Ignore the Troll by timepilot · · Score: 1

      Borrowing from IMDB:

      [Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
      Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
      Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    19. Re:Ignore the Troll by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, saying Colbert/Stewart use "satire" is like saying some porn fantasy involving Harry Potter and Ron Weaseley you find on the Internet is "literature". If I draw a stick figure in Paint can I go around telling everyone I'm an Artist (pronounced Are-Teest of course)?

      Sure... but does it avail anyone to call it such?

    20. Re:Ignore the Troll by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's obvious you haven't watched either recently.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    21. Re:Ignore the Troll by ah.clem · · Score: 1

      Do not underestimate the "Beckerheads" in America. You may live in a part of the country where there are relatively few, but some of us live with Beckerheads all around us. There are actually large numbers of willfully ignorant or just plain stupid folks that have found a voice on Fox and in the Tea Party, and because they can hear each other rant and see it on TV, they feel empowered and in the right. They're complete douches, but there are a lot more douches than smart people in this country and given enough time without being slapped down, they will prevail. This is what comes from pretending to be a "classless" society. The Beckerheads end up believing they actually have a clue and everyone else is too stupid to "get it", and now they have momentum. Just my opinion.

      --
      "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
    22. Re:Ignore the Troll by butalearner · · Score: 1

      You obviously have never seen any of Keith Olberman's political rants.

      ...which kind of reinforces the point, doesn't it? He doesn't have half the country lapping up his every word.

    23. Re:Ignore the Troll by GreyyGuy · · Score: 1, Troll

      That is because Republicans are out doing things. Mainly crazy things that can be made fun of. Democrats are not doing much of anything. Sure they don't get made fun of- but they also aren't doing anything to run the country.

    24. Re:Ignore the Troll by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Daily Show and the Colbert report make fun of the brainless.

      Fortunately for the Democratic party, they are spineless.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    25. Re:Ignore the Troll by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You obviously have never seen any of Keith Olberman's political rants.

      I have. Partisan, absolutely. Demagogue-y, sure. As ridiculous as Beck? Not even close on his best day.

    26. Re:Ignore the Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither has anyone else, because liberals don't care about that crap, which is why every attempt to make a liberal talk network has failed.

    27. Re:Ignore the Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who pushed those ruthless terms? Woodrow Wilson

    28. Re:Ignore the Troll by spun · · Score: 1

      Oh, snap. It's funny because it's true.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    29. Re:Ignore the Troll by sorak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly...They made fun of Clinton because he got a blow job. They make fun of Bush because he acts folksie and dumb. They make fun of Dick Cheney because he has a Darth Vader Complex. As for Obama, what are they going to do? They can't do racist humor. He isn't dumb or crazy, and he only seems evil to rightwing conspiracy theorists. So what jokes do you make?

    30. Re:Ignore the Troll by Fryth · · Score: 1

      http://www.mikemalloy.com/

      Mike Malloy is sort of the liberal answer to Glenn Beck. He uses anger and rage on his show as a sort of catharsis, and it's pretty funny when he blows up against the right (or whatever passes for right-wing nowadays)... Love it, it's a fantastic radio show, everyone interested in political podcasts should check it out.

    31. Re:Ignore the Troll by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? Count the number of times John Stewart makes direct fun of a Republican, then rewatch an episode and count the number of times he makes fun of a Democrat. Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives.

      First, sure, but making fun of one more than the other != only making fun of one, which is what the post you replied to was rebutting.

      Second, to be fair, if you removed mocking Fox News from the count, I think it'd be pretty even up. As a comedian, what can you even do about that? Half the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC reruns or the equivalent and there just isn't shit funny to say about that. Olbermann at his most blustering and ridiculous can't hold a candle to the sheer ludicrousness of Glenn Beck drawing something completely nonsensical on a chalkboard and weeping about it.


      (Colbert is a little more middle but still ridicules Republicans more.) Comedy Central is just as left-leaning as CNN and MSNBC.

      If you think the modern incarnation of CNN is left-leaning, you're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. If anything, they attempt to be "balanced" to a fault, giving voice to both sides of an issue even when one of those sides (be it conservative or liberal) is clearly insane. If I was a politician and came out tomorrow saying I thought we shouldn't set kindergardens on fire, CNN would find some nutball who thought we should to provide a counterpoint.

    32. Re:Ignore the Troll by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's exactly it. You can agree with or disagree with Obama's politics but the fact so far is, the man is just not funny. He just does not do the kinds of things publically that make for good comedy TV.

      Biden, on the other hand, does produce his fair share of comedy moments and you do see those on the Daily Show as they happen.

    33. Re:Ignore the Troll by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives.

      Give Comedy Central a break, conservatives write their own jokes. They have rallies where people show up with signs like "We don't want socialism you arrogant Kenyan." You don't even need to add anything to that for it to be funny.

      http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-tea-party-signs.htm

      If liberals held rallies where people were acting like that then they would get made fun of also. They're getting made fun of not because they're conservative, but because they're stupid. It just happens to be conservatives doing most of the publicly stupid things these days.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    34. Re:Ignore the Troll by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Neither has anyone else, because liberals don't care about that crap, which is why every attempt to make a liberal talk network has failed.

      That's right, we prefer to think for ourselves rather than being spoon fed regurgitated talking points by moronic pundits.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    35. Re:Ignore the Troll by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Considering it's not a real news show, meant purely for entertainment and yet it gets compared to the likes of Fox News and MSNBC that would mean that those real news shows must really suck if a satire show can be used within the same debate as real news media.

    36. Re:Ignore the Troll by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Despite it being satire and meant to entertain it is still being compared against the likes of Fox and MSNBC which just shows how fucking awful the news industry is.

    37. Re:Ignore the Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keith Olbermann Wants a word with you.

    38. Re:Ignore the Troll by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I have never heard someone recount anything Beck has said that is as ridiculous as Olberman on one of his more sane days.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    39. Re:Ignore the Troll by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Except, funnily enough, he's not got the mass following that Beck does. I'm fairly politically astute, but I'd never heard of him until you mentioned him.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    40. Re:Ignore the Troll by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      I'm curious what qualifies as satire to you.

      I'm not a big fan of Colbert and I usually don't watch his show, but if his performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner doesn't strike you as one of the most pointed and brilliant bits of political satire of the last ten years, then I have to think you either genuinely don't understand what satire is or you're too partisan to have anything resembling a sense of humor.

    41. Re:Ignore the Troll by rallen911 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Check the ratings of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert... nearly 2 million per day (1.8 million or so) Glenn Beck is over 3 million per day. I don't think he or his viewers give a rat's ass about either of these guys.

      All of the negative comments about Beck don't hold water. It's obvious that none of the people spewing have watched his show. He points out freely available information about things he disagrees with ( a lot of it coming from videos of the people in question ). There is never an attempt to correct the information if he is wrong. He only gets attacked for asking the question.

      He is a bit nutty, and he'll admit that himself. He's there to entertain, and he'll admit that too. He tells his viewers, "Don't take my word for it. Investigate it for yourself and make up your mind." I don't hear Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, or Keith Olberman saying anything like that. They assume that we're all idiots and they need to tell us what to think.

      Watch Beck's show for a week. Do some of your own research to see if he's telling the truth. Make up your own mind. You may be surprised.

    42. Re:Ignore the Troll by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      I would respectfully suggest, sir, that you then are a resident of Crazytown, population: you.

    43. Re:Ignore the Troll by couchslug · · Score: 1
      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    44. Re:Ignore the Troll by crgrace · · Score: 1

      Not doing anything? I thought Obama was busying destroying our country by fundamental changing everything to socialism.

    45. Re:Ignore the Troll by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Really? Count the number of times John Stewart makes direct fun of a Republican, then rewatch an episode and count the number of times he makes fun of a Democrat. Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives. (Colbert is a little more middle but still ridicules Republicans more.)

      Comedy Central is just as left-leaning as CNN and MSNBC.

      1 - Who can blame Comedy Central if it's the Republicans who provide most of the satire-friendly material? That's like complaining about the media playing more negative stories about McCain than Obama during the election - which was kind of inevitable since McCain dutifully provided more negative material than Obama during the campaign.

      2 - Comedy Central isn't a news network and doesn't even pretend to be "Fair and Balanced", unlike a certain propaganda channel that packages itself as real news. I mean, The Daily Show's website says in big letters "fake news".

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    46. Re: Ignore the Troll by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Half the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC rerunsHalf the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC reruns

      The "ultra-liberal" MSNBC also gives air time to Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews. And you might as well add Pat Buchanan, given how regularly he gets soapbox time on Matthews' show.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    47. Re:Ignore the Troll by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Beck has both good and bad points. On the good side, he's intelligent, strongly opposes violence, works hard, does a lot of research, seems to be pretty honest, and has pointed out the bad points of some very nasty people in and around government. On the bad side, he's a little too eager to believe things that he wants to be true, and when it comes to religion he frequently becomes completely divorced from reality. Although his religious views gain him a certain class of support, they also repel many others (me in particular) and severely undercut his logic and the value of his political strategy.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    48. Re:Ignore the Troll by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Limbaugh has made it a significant part of his career to point out that it is the left that makes the most use of "talking points". Time and again he's broadcast examples of liberal "newsmen" and politicians all simultaneously starting to use the same phrase or obscure word (remember "gravitas"?).

      So effective is Limbaugh that other conservative commentators copy him (as Limbaugh says, others use him for "show prep"). Alas, only a few (like Howie Carr) bother to cite Limbaugh, giving the impression that there are official right-wing "talking points". Of course, both political parties try to persuade/cajole/threaten/force their hierarchy to toe the party line and also evade some issues, but it's much worse from Democrats/liberals because force, not freedom, is central to their political philosophy.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    49. Re:Ignore the Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If anything, they attempt to be "balanced" to a fault, giving voice to both sides of an issue even when one of those sides (be it conservative or liberal) is clearly insane. If I was a politician and came out tomorrow saying I thought we shouldn't set kindergardens on fire, CNN would find some nutball who thought we should to provide a counterpoint.

      Oblig. SMBC Theater : Both sides

    50. Re:Ignore the Troll by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Woodrow Wilson (US prez at the time) wasn't so keen on the harsh terms that his European counterparts were. So maybe we shouldn't have ignored that particular American. Granted, he could have compromised to get past Lodge's objections in the Senate.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    51. Re:Ignore the Troll by spun · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I always thought force, not freedom, was central to Republicans. So much force, so many things to tell people to do or not to do, go to church, don't get an abortion, don't have anal sex, don't smoke pot, don't drink on Sundays, no sex out of wedlock, don't use condoms, the list goes on.

      Funny thing, that. Democrats want to regulate actions that harm other people. Republicans want to regulate actions that make their God sad. Democrats increase freedom by protecting the little guy from exploitation by the powerful. Republicans reduce freedom by interfering with your personal life.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    52. Re:Ignore the Troll by adonoman · · Score: 1

      For the most part, his facts are either verifiable, or close enough that it's not worth arguing over. It's his arguments forms. A has attribute P, B has attribute P, therefore A is just like B is not a cogent argument. It doesn't matter how much proof you have that A has attribute P or that B has attribute P. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Yes, he uses diagrams, props and rhetorical devices to confuse the base form of the argument he's making, but that doesn't make it any more valid.

  5. Idle? by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shouldn't this be in idle?

  6. Page hits, my man, page hits by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Controversy leads to page hits. Page hits lead to advertisers. Advertisers lead to income. Income leads to getting laid.

    Mystery solved.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Income leads to getting laid.

      So again, why is this on Slashdot?

    2. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Getting laid leads to marriage. Marriage leads to... SUFFERING.

    3. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by spun · · Score: 1

      And thus, the cycle is complete.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by jeffasselin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Should the dark side be somewhere in the chain of reasoning?

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    5. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      and suffering leads to the dark side.

    6. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting laid leads to the Dark Side of the Force. Once you step foot on that path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

    7. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the fellow below had it right when he completed the cycle with "Getting laid leads to marriage, and marriage leads to SUFFERING!"

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by masmullin · · Score: 1

      laid leads to fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

    9. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Controversy leads to page hits. Page hits lead to advertisers. Advertisers lead to income. Income leads to getting laid.

      It's at that last part where the process always seems to break down.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re: Page hits, my man, page hits by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Should the dark side be somewhere in the chain of reasoning?

      No, it has to be to the side. Otherwise we'd call it the Dark Somewhereinthemiddle.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    11. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Should the dark side be somewhere in the chain of reasoning?

      Glenn Beck was already mentioned numerous times above...

    12. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by deblau · · Score: 1

      Controversy leads to page hits. Page hits lead to advertisers. Advertisers lead to income. Income leads to StarCraft II.

      Fixed that for ya. You must be new around here.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    13. Re:Page hits, my man, page hits by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Income leads to getting laid.

      I got to get myself a job!

      --
      This is blinging
  7. It's the answer!!!! by hort_wort · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you put in the proposed date into a binary translator, 10/10/10, you get an output of 42!!! The answer to everything is this rally!!!

    This is better than geese flying over.

    1. Re:It's the answer!!!! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you put in the proposed date into a binary translator, 10/10/10, you get an output of 42!!!

      If you need to use a binary translator to determine that, then you're on the wrong website.

      Please hand in your geek card on your way out.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  8. I have one question. by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

    Where can I register? I want to go!

  9. Journalism by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every so often I think it's a sad state of affairs for journalism when satirists like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert on a comedy channel are considered more reliable, trustworthy, and objective in their reporting than "serious" (for lack of a better term) journalists like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly on what's supposed to be a news channel.

    1. Re:Journalism by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "serious" (for lack of a better term) journalists

      The better term is "opinion show hosts".

    2. Re:Journalism by longacre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because they're on a channel with "news" in the name does not make them journalists. Beck and O'Reilly are entertainers, just like Nancy Grace, Larry King, Keith Olbermann, Rick Sanchez, etc.

    3. Re:Journalism by NiteShaed · · Score: 4, Informative

      than "serious" (for lack of a better term) journalists like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly

      There's your mistake. Beck and O'Reilly aren't journalists at all, serious or otherwise. Their shows are opinion pieces, start to finish. They're "serious journalists" in the same way that professional wrestlers are "serious athletes".

      on what's supposed to be a news channel

      FOX should just give up the word news and start calling themselves a "political commentary" channel. That's what they really seem to want to focus on, and what they want to be. Why not just go with that? Note to FOX fans who take this as insulting, this isn't necessarily intended to be a negative thing. If anything, it would probably eliminate a lot of the criticism aimed at FOX News. There's nothing wrong with being a political commentary channel, and you don't need to pretend to hold to some kind of "Fair and Balanced" standard.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    4. Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Every so often I think it's a sad state of affairs for journalism when satirists like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert on a comedy channel are considered more reliable, trustworthy, and objective in their reporting than "serious" (for lack of a better term) journalists like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly on what's supposed to be a news channel.

      Beck and O'Reilly aren't journalists, you goon. They're commentators. There's a difference. People don't seem to get it. Fox News has real news with real journalists, but they also are an outlet for opinion shows with political commentary. It's sad that you can't tell the difference.

    5. Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann and the like are not "serious" journalist the editorialize and entertain (well they entertain some people they disgust me). John Stewart and Stephen Colbert do the same thing with some jokes thrown in... Reporters who stick to the facts, that's real journalism my friend and you and I don't know their names because they are all "AP contributor" and the like.

    6. Re:Journalism by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know that that's entirely fair. These things are on a continuum.

      You look at an O'Reilly or an Olbermann (to pick two guys with very different politics), and if you're not in line with them politically, you'll probably disagree a lot with their interpretation of an event or its implications, but in some sense their starting point feels based in reality even if where they end up isn't.

      I don't get that same sense out of, say, Beck.

    7. Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but it's your misplaced consideration that makes it sad. So stop believing satirists. They are there to exaggerate and be sensational, and often completely fabricate if not bend the facts greatly in order to get a laugh.

    8. Re:Journalism by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Begging the question. And yes, I used the phrase correctly. I love how when people see that phrase they automatically assume only they know how it's used, but I digress.

      You're like one of those guys who goes on and on about how fake WWE wrestling is and how it's hilarious those hillbillies think it's real. Here's a clue: Nobody but young children and (literally) retarded people think it's real. They know it's entertainment.

      Nobody thinks Beck or O'Reilly are "journalists" in the sense of just reporting on news. So your whole premise is flawed.

    9. Re:Journalism by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 2, Informative

      journalists like Glenn Beck

      I think Glenn Beck might disagree with that statement.

      GLENN: Now remember, I'm not a journalist. They always make fun of me: Glenn Beck, he's a pseudojournalist. No, I'm not a journalist. I never claimed to be a journalist. I am an opinion person.

      http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/24124/

    10. Re:Journalism by Dr.+Grabow · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      when satirists like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert on a comedy channel are considered more reliable, trustworthy, and objective in their reporting

      Yeah? "Considered" by whom? You're just as big of a fool as Stewart, Colbert, Beck, and O'Reilly if you really believe that anyone spouting political opinions on TV is "reliable" or "trustworthy".

    11. Re:Journalism by Red+Flayer · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fox News has real news with real journalists, but they also are an outlet for opinion shows with political commentary. It's sad that you can't tell the difference.

      Oh, poppycock. If you want to see real news, you have to look elsewhere than Fox News. Fox News channel has political commentary masquerading as news, and then they have demagoguery masquerading as political commentary.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    12. Re:Journalism by psyopper · · Score: 1

      But Bill O'Reilly awarded himself the Peabody a few years ago; that's a very prestigious journalism award. I think that counts as positioning yourself as a journalist.

    13. Re:Journalism by jpapon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh, poppycock. If you want to see real news, you have to look elsewhere than Fox News. Fox News channel has political commentary masquerading as news, and then they have demagoguery masquerading as political commentary.

      +1 for using poppycock

      and +1 for general truth

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    14. Re:Journalism by killmenow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but it's a pity Fox News' real news coverage consists mostly of: "Today, Glenn Beck questioned the legitimacy of President Obama's claims of being a Christian." and other "news" that you are 100% correct in calling factual reporting even though its primary purpose is to parrot the same political agenda and further push the chosen narrative.

      Sadly, it's the same thing on other networks. ESPN: Mike & Mike show in the AM blathers about something. Later the same day, ESPN news coverage is largely about the crap said earlier in the day on Mike & Mike.

      When you have a 24/7 news channel, sometimes you have to manufacture news.

    15. Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're "serious journalists" in the same way that professional wrestlers are "serious athletes".

      That is an insult to the wrestler , they are serious athletes, they just don't are in a serious discipline

    16. Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't get that same sense out of, say, Beck."

      No kidding. I used to think he was just a harmless blowhard when he was on Headline News (although I used to despise the fact that repeats of his show monopolized so much of the channel that I wasn't getting the "headline news" I came for -- he and Nancy Grace were quite the pair -- but I digress). Then I realized he's not just any blowhard, he's a harmful one. Because anyone who reads such significance into a "failure to deny something" is clearly not dealing with reality, and isn't interested in actual evidence. They're making it up out of nothing. That's not merely misinformed, it's dangerous. It's glorifying ignorance as political commentary.

      This is a guy that, if he was in computer science, wouldn't understand the concept of NULL versus a 0 and 1. Imagine the code.

    17. Re:Journalism by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Half true... there is also the issue of the platform given by their employer.

      While we did see the likes of Olbermann & Mathews moderating a debate or two during the 2008 election cycle... I don't recall O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck or any of the other FNC commentators doing the same.

    18. Re:Journalism by butalearner · · Score: 1

      I don't know that that's entirely fair. These things are on a continuum.

      You look at an O'Reilly or an Olbermann (to pick two guys with very different politics), and if you're not in line with them politically, you'll probably disagree a lot with their interpretation of an event or its implications, but in some sense their starting point feels based in reality even if where they end up isn't.

      I don't get that same sense out of, say, Beck.

      Meaning his starting point isn't based in reality either? I know what you mean. I laugh everytime I read what he says about net neutrality, then I stop because I realize how many people actually believe him. Here you go, a transcript straight from his show:

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590506,00.html

      Of course, what can you expect from someone who believes "Marxism" and "socialism" are curse words. How he manages to squeeze those words in there 21 times is particularly impressive.

    19. Re:Journalism by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      There's also a fact continuum as well.

      I know there's Olbermannwatch and other crazies out there; but when has Keith ever been seriously factually wrong?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    20. Re:Journalism by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      The reactionary branch of my wife's extended family (whose opinions I get to share via Facebook) would like to have a word with you.

      Yes, including the wrestling part.

      I agree that most adults know it's fake, but most is not all.

    21. Re:Journalism by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      Fox News has real news with real journalists, but they also are an outlet for opinion shows with political commentary.

      However, the "real news" also has its slant, sometimes in the form of omission.

      For example, on the day that Ken Mehlman (sp?) coming out was all over the news on every other channel, it wasn't covered at all on Fox.

    22. Re:Journalism by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Ahem. The names in bold are commentators on FOX NEWS
      May 15, 2007: Republican Debate, moderated by BRIT HUME, with CHRIS WALLACE and WENDELL GOLER
      September 15, 2007: Republican Debate, moderated by BRIT HUME, with CHRIS WALLACE and WENDELL GOLER
      October 21, 2007: Republican Debate, moderated by BRIT HUME, with CHRIS WALLACE, WENDELL GOLER, and CARL CAMERON.
      January 6, 2008: informal Republican debate, moderated by CHRIS WALLACE.
      Sorry to ruin your bullshit complaint with, you know, facts and stuff. Do not compound your error further by claiming that any of these FNC tools are NOT commentators. Unless, for example, Brit Hume suggesting that Tiger Woods abandon his Buddhist faith for the warm embrace of Xianity is considered fair and balanced.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    23. Re:Journalism by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      FOX should just give up the word news and start calling themselves a "political commentary" channel. That's what they really seem to want to focus on, and what they want to be. Why not just go with that? Note to FOX fans who take this as insulting, this isn't necessarily intended to be a negative thing. If anything, it would probably eliminate a lot of the criticism aimed at FOX News. There's nothing wrong with being a political commentary channel, and you don't need to pretend to hold to some kind of "Fair and Balanced" standard.

      Won't. Happen. Ever.

      The clear objective of Fox News is to shape their viewers' perception of the world with a strongly conservative slant. They go to unmatched extremes to do this, not just in their "opinion" shows but in their news reporting as well. If they stopped calling themselves a "news" organization, they would undermine their primary mission.

      If you want to rewrite history, the most important step is to call yourself a historian.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    24. Re:Journalism by khallow · · Score: 1

      Every so often I think it's a sad state of affairs for journalism when satirists like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert on a comedy channel are considered more reliable, trustworthy, and objective in their reporting than "serious" (for lack of a better term) journalists like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly on what's supposed to be a news channel.

      What's the difference between the four, aside from a matter of style? To me, they're all the same. I would consider all four, journalists and entertainers (more the latter than the former). Second, opinions on who is more trustworthy vary. A blanket statement like the above is simply incorrect.

    25. Re:Journalism by ep32g79 · · Score: 1

      I can scream names and cherry pick too
      Ahem. The names in bold are commentators on NBC
      May 3, 2007: Republican Debate, moderated by Chris Matthews
      October 9, 2007: Republican Debate, moderated by Chris Matthews and Maria Bartiromo.
      January 24, 2008: Republican Debate, moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert.
      Sorry to ruin your decisive and solid evidence. Wanna take a look at the democrat side now?

    26. Re:Journalism by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's a pity Fox News' real news coverage consists mostly of: "Today, Glenn Beck questioned the legitimacy of President Obama's claims of being a Christian." and other "news" that you are 100% correct in calling factual reporting even though its primary purpose is to parrot the same political agenda and further push the chosen narrative.

      I really wonder if this is true, because it sounds a lot like what you hear from the Daily Show. Did you actually watch Fox News yourself to come to this conclusion, or did you get it from watching the Daily Show? Because I can't stand to watch Fox News long enough to figure that out. I like the Daily Show, but I'm not about to use it for coming to conclusions on anything serious, because it is a comedy show after all. They take things out of context on purpose, which is funny and makes me laugh, but please don't take it seriously.

      --
      Qxe4
    27. Re:Journalism by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      More like comedians. Except Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are unwitting comedians, Colbert and Stewart are true comedians.

    28. Re:Journalism by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      If you (can) read the grandparent comment, you will see that mine was a response to the direct assertion that no Fox commentators had moderated ANY debates. Personally I don't give a rat's turd about who fake moderates a fake debate. I do, however, give a sewer full of shit's worth about dumbasses who make up their own facts. The fact that I have to do so for right-wingers a lot more than left-wingers is, however, telling.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    29. Re: Journalism by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      "serious" (for lack of a better term) journalists

      The better term is "opinion show hosts".

      The best term for most of them is "corporate propaganda peddlers".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    30. Re:Journalism by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      For example, on the day that Ken Mehlman (sp?) coming out was all over the news on every other channel, it wasn't covered at all on Fox.

      Really?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    31. Re:Journalism by sjames · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you could watch Walters or Koppel (amongst others) and not know or care what their personal politics were because they were professional journalists there to give you the news.

      There's not much of that on the "news" these days.

    32. Re:Journalism by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann and the like are not "serious" journalist the editorialize and entertain (well they entertain some people they disgust me). John Stewart and Stephen Colbert do the same thing with some jokes thrown in... Reporters who stick to the facts, that's real journalism my friend and you and I don't know their names because they are all "AP contributor" and the like.

      "AP Contributor" is one of my favorite journalists! I wish s/he'd write more pieces.

    33. Re:Journalism by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      By myself and most of my friends. The very small remainder, sadly, actually think that Beck is a journalist and that he and O'Reilly are fair and balanced.

  10. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are usually nerdy college students or people who live in their parent's basement rent free. In other words dependents who are dependant upon staying out from the daylight. You really think they are going to get a bunch of them pryed away from their gamestations and computers long enough to go outside to a rally in the hot burning sun?

    You would have better luck convincing Vampires to eat a cloves of garlic while standing in an open air church at high noon.

    You shouldn't assume that everyone who watches the same shows you do is like you.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  11. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by rotide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just curious, but what data are you basing that extremely general claim off of? Or is your post meant to troll all those who like Colbert/Stewart for whatever reason you have?

  12. It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    where a young woman wondered if the only way to point out the absurdity of the Tea Party's rally would be if Colbert mirrored it with his own Colbert Nation.'"

    It's certainly easier than, you know, actually acknowledging and dealing with their ideas...

    1. Re:It's certainly easier... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean like how pretty much all of what they complained about was happening also under Dubya's reign in office and yet they only started complaining about these things once Obama got into office and continued the stupid policies of the previous administration?

    2. Re:It's certainly easier... by spun · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      They don't have any ideas worth acknowledging and dealing with. We all have a limited amount of time and attention, there is no sense wasting a limited resource on trivial things.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. When logic and reason aren't on your side, resort to mockery. It's the liberal way!

    4. Re:It's certainly easier... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's certainly easier than, you know, actually acknowledging and dealing with their ideas...

      What ideas? You mean ideas like somehow thinking that Patrick Henry was a supporter of the US Constitution http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/09/patrick_henry_and_the_tea_part_1.php. Or maybe you mean Glenn Beck's pseudoscientific ideas about how the Smithsonian is involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up 19th century archaelogical facts?http://anthroslug.blogspot.com/2010/08/glenn-becks-pseudo-archaeology-part-1.html. Or maybe you mean the idea that Obama is going to put Republicans into concentration camps http://boingboing.net/2009/03/17/foxs-glenn-beck-says.html? You know, what? I'm sick of the notion that there is anything resembling worthwhile ideas coming from this man. At a certain point, it is a waste of time to actually respond to this paranoid nonsense in any other way than ridicule. And to the people who believe him or listen to him? Fuck 'em. Fuck every one of them for being too lazy or too stupid or too tribalistic to exercise their brains at all.

      Now, if you just we're talking about the saner end of the Tea Partiers then there might be some argument that they have actual ideas, mainly resembling the form "I like government policies that make life better for me but not for other people." Do I need to address what's wrong with that also or are we done?

    5. Re:It's certainly easier... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. She waves her hand and says something like "Oh, they wouldn't know real debate so we shouldn't bother". The ironing cracks me up. One group of dim, smug assholes mocking another group of people for being dim, righteous assholes.

    6. Re:It's certainly easier... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's my issue with the teabaggers. Where were they when Dubya was spending us into the poorhouse? Granted, he was Scrooge McDuck compared to Obama.

      I think they're largely religious nut Republicans fed up with how "RINO" (they love that term) filled their party has become. Sure, there is a subset of them who are more of a libertarian bent and have logical, rational points of view but I don't think they're a majority.

      I hate both spectrums. The left sickens me with their dreary smugness and complete lack of grasp of obvious reality (we can't keep spending like this), while the right bores me with their flag-wrapped religious jingoism, World Police bullshit. I fucking hate them both.

    7. Re:It's certainly easier... by Jodka · · Score: 1

      ...We all have a limited amount of time and attention, there is no sense wasting a limited resource on trivial things.

      So then why are you posting on slashdot?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    8. Re:It's certainly easier... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Both sides are assholes which is why neither extreme should be the one holding power.

    9. Re:It's certainly easier... by spun · · Score: 1

      Slashdot isn't pointless idiocy. There are intelligent people here.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:It's certainly easier... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Both sides are assholes which is why neither extreme should be the one holding power.

      Sure... and then you get Obama, who's about as middle of the road as they come, hence why no one is happy. The Democrats wish he was more liberal, the Republicans wish he was more conservative, and everyone else wishes he was at least interesting enough to pay attention to.

    11. Re:It's certainly easier... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first time I heard anything about the tea-party was right after TARP. Doubled budget deficits under Obama didn't help (although really it isn't entirely Obama's fault; just as the Bush deficits weren't entirely Bush's fault, or the Clinton surplus entirely Clinton's fault. It is mainly a matter of demographics if you actually did into the numbers. The Reagan deficits on the other hand actually were Reagan's fault, although they were much smaller).

      --
      Qxe4
    12. Re:It's certainly easier... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      *golf clap

    13. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      only the lunatic right can rally their idiotic supporters to rally against things that would directly benefit them, such as public healthcare (cut to the elderly lady tea party supporter a few months ago who was campaigning against public healthcare while in the same breath said she had to take on three jobs to pay her sick husband's medical bills). Also, only the lunatic right can convince people that issues such as net neutrality are the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY REALLY ARE in order to get their idiotic supporters to campaign against them.

      in short: a significant percentage of the U.S population is rallying against obama for inane reasons simply because they can't say what their true issue with him is. and their true isue is that THEIR PRESIDENT IS A NIGGER AND THEY CAN'T HANDLE HAVING A NIGGER FOR A PRESIDENT.

    14. Re:It's certainly easier... by Sprouticus · · Score: 0

      I call BS... 1st protest Feb 27th, 2009

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

      Yes they protested TARP, but it was not until Obama (a black Democrat) got into office that people actually showed up in person.

      NOTE: i dont think him being black was the big issue for most people in the Tea Party, but you would be foolish to think it was not important to some of them.

      One other thing, while Obama has increased the debt substantially, no Republican has reduced the debt since 1970....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

    15. Re:It's certainly easier... by meustrus · · Score: 1

      I hear you. My grandfather was an old-style Republican politician, back in the day when that meant something. The whole party started going downhill after Goldwater lost and the same extremist element of society decided a new direction for the Republican party. It really came to a head with Roe v. Wade, after which the old Republican party got kicked out of office, including dear old gramps.

      Which makes me think...what would happen if abortion was brought up at a tea party rally? Would the religious extremists (who want the government to step in and enforce their morality) fight with the libertarians (who want the government to leave us all alone)?

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    16. Re:It's certainly easier... by damn_registrars · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's certainly easier than, you know, actually acknowledging and dealing with their ideas...

      How exactly are you supposed to acknowledge and deal with ideas from a group whose platform includes never, ever, under any circumstances, even consider compromise? It's one thing to have "new" ideas, but it is another thing to approach life with a my-way-or-the-highway mentality and then complain endlessly that nobody is willing to talk to you.

      In other words, they are asking (very loudly) for respect that they refuse to give to anyone else.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    17. Re:It's certainly easier... by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So, let's quote from your link on Wikipedia, where it mentions a protest on the date:

      February 27, 2009 to protest the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailout bill signed by President George W. Bush in October 2008

      Now, does it really seem so unreasonable that people were talking about this before the date of the actual protest? Dig around a little, and you'll see people were very upset about the bank bailout, which is the reason the first one failed. A lot of people were opposed to it.

      One other thing, while Obama has increased the debt substantially, no Republican has reduced the debt since 1970

      Um, are you trying to prove that Democrats are better than Republicans or something?

      You aren't thinking clearly. Blaming an entire deficit on one president is silly. Using your approach, you might as well say, "no Democrat controlled congress has reduced the deficit since the Carter era." That would be silly also.

      Look at the numbers more closely, and you will see that in strict terms, no president has managed to reduce the debt. Ever since Roosevelt, the debt has been increasing. Those who've managed to reduce it did so only relative to GDP, and they managed that because GDP of the country was increasing faster than the debt, which is what happened during the 90s, or because inflation really helps debtors when they're on a fixed interest rate (what happened during the 70s).

      Look deeper, and you'll see that the main difficulty for Obama was also the main difficulty for Bush: increasing entitlement spending as the baby-boomers age. This isn't something a president has a lot of control over (you can't demand that everyone stay young).

      It also isn't something tea-partiers have dealt with much. I will be interested in seeing how they respond if they ever become aware of this difficulty, which they will as they begin to gain power.

      --
      Qxe4
    18. Re:It's certainly easier... by Glock27 · · Score: 1

      everyone else wishes he was at least interesting enough to pay attention to.

      Plenty of people simply wish he were doing something in some way positive, especially with the economy. Since he (and his team) clearly have no idea how the economy actually works, people are understandably eager for a sane alternative.

      Plus, a lot of folks out there have been shocked at the actual policies of 0 as opposed to what they thought they'd get when they elected him.

      The very successful Tea Party influence on the primaries pales beside what's going to happen in November. ;-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    19. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Both sides are assholes which is why neither extreme should be the one holding power.

      Sure... and then you get Obama, who's about as middle of the road as they come, hence why no one is happy. The Democrats wish he was more liberal, the Republicans wish he was more conservative, and everyone else wishes he was at least interesting enough to pay attention to.

      Two things. First, sometimes an effective leader needs to be an asshole. That is, some groups aren't going to get the candy they want and you can't spend all day placating them. Not saying that effective leadership has snuck in anywhere, just pointing out that "being assholes" isn't in itself a condition for keeping someone from power. Second, I don't know how someone would claim that Obama is "middle of the road". My view is that middle of the road means a) willingness to compromise and b) holds views that most people agree with. Neither appear to be the case with Obama.

      A key counterexample to the assertion is the Obama approach to health care reform. Minimal attempts were made to compromise, namely, just barely enough to get the bills to pass (for example. one Republican senator is not every Republican senator) and the bills were huge (big all or nothing efforts are inherently resistant to compromise, "Pass the whole thing or you don't get what you want"). There was also talk in the Senate of doing away with the filibuster because they couldn't get the votes for cloture (yet another sign of lack of compromise).

      Second, reducing health care costs was not a priority of the attempt. That excludes the viewpoint of most people and businesses right there (recall that 85% of the population already has health insurance, these bills did not help them). So we have an attempt that neither went out of its way to compromise nor reflected the needs and wishes of a majority of the population.

      Finally, this is just my humble opinion, but I don't think the health care reform made economic sense. First, I don't see it actually contributing to the goals of greater health care coverage (sounds like a lot of businesses will drop their insurance and pay the fee). We probably will see more people without insurance due to health care "reform". It also is likely to increase spending, another thing that doesn't make sense for the US. Finally, it probably will increase health care costs, meaning it will thwart one of the fundamental desires of US voters.

      The absence of compromise and a somewhat deviant ideology are visible in other parts of his ideology and, of course, in his bizarre associations prior to becoming president (not everyone hobnobs with racists for 20 years or former US terrorists).

      But he's considered "middle of the road" because there are some fruitcakes who want to go further? I don't buy it.

    20. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cut to the elderly lady tea party supporter a few months ago who was campaigning against public healthcare while in the same breath said she had to take on three jobs to pay her sick husband's medical bills

      Medical costs are so out of whack because of government regulation and union protectionism. If there was an actual free market (we have nothing even resembling a free market) prices would be affordable for all.

      and their true isue is that THEIR PRESIDENT IS A NIGGER AND THEY CAN'T HANDLE HAVING A NIGGER FOR A PRESIDENT.

      It's primarily because he's a Democrat. If he was a Republican and pushing the same things (ie, Romney) Republican's would be praising him and saying if you disagree with him you support terrorists.

    21. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obamacare is a bit of a weak plan, but that's because it's based on the Mitt Romney reform, which was promoted by the Heritage Foundation.

      It's clear by now that Obama is best considered a moderate conservative. On the legislative side, his initial proposals have been quite middle-of-the-road, and then rendered more conservative in order to get the votes of "centrists" necessary for passage. If he was a liberal, then he would have opened his negotiation with liberal policies. He wouldn't have deliberately excluded single-payer advocates from discussions about health care reform. He wouldn't have appointed Alan Simpson ("We've reached a point where [Social Security is] like a milk cow with 310 million tits!") to the deficit panel.

    22. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Middle of the road? LMGDFAO

    23. Re:It's certainly easier... by realnrh · · Score: 1

      The Bush deficits weren't wholly and utterly his fault, but you can rather easily place an enormous percentage of them on him spending a trillion dollars on a war he chose to start, and a trillion dollars on a tax cut that went disproportionately to the haves and the have-mores.

      --
      Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
    24. Re:It's certainly easier... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Sure... and then you get Obama, who's about as middle of the road as they come, hence why no one is happy.

      I think its more likely that people are unhappy with our government, in proximate terms, because the economy sucks and the government at the time, rightly or wrongly, tends to disproportionately get the blame or credit for the economy. In more general, long term, terms, I think people are unhappy in the US with government because we have an electoral system which greatly limits the scope of ideas represented in the government and produces a government that does not effectively represent the preferences of the populace, which is borne out by the research on popular opinion of government across stable democratic states and the relation it bears to the electoral systems and the number of competitive parties.

    25. Re:It's certainly easier... by saxoholic · · Score: 1

      Did you just use the word logical to describe the libertarians? Have you not read their thoughts on the gold standard?

    26. Re:It's certainly easier... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The Bush deficits weren't wholly and utterly his fault, but you can rather easily place an enormous percentage of them on him spending a trillion dollars on a war he chose to start

      As a matter of fact, you can calculate that exact percentage. The Iraq war has been costing between $53 billion and $142 billion every year since it started. Over the same period, the national debt has increased by about $500 billion annually (this is a different number than the budget deficit, because of course the budget deficit is an accounting lie). So we have the Iraq war between 10% and 28%, and averaging around 21%. Whether or not 21% is an enormous percentage is a matter of opinion, but clearly even without the Iraq war there would still be a huge deficit.

      You claim the tax cuts disproportionately favored the rich. Judging taxes is a hard thing to do, which is why people who study this sort of thing for a living disagree on the matter. As an example to show how difficult it is, consider this fact: the amount of income paid by millionaires in taxes more than doubled as a result of the Bush tax cuts. To truly gauge the effects of particular taxes will take decades of experimentation and analysis, we just don't have the data necessary to come to good, precise, scientific answers for these things.

      --
      Qxe4
    27. Re:It's certainly easier... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      As a non-american I still haven't figured out what Glenn Beck has to do with the tea party.. and yet, everytime I hear about one, someone brings up the other.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    28. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's clear by now that Obama is best considered a moderate conservative. On the legislative side, his initial proposals have been quite middle-of-the-road, and then rendered more conservative in order to get the votes of "centrists" necessary for passage. If he was a liberal, then he would have opened his negotiation with liberal policies. He wouldn't have deliberately excluded single-payer advocates from discussions about health care reform. He wouldn't have appointed Alan Simpson ("We've reached a point where [Social Security is] like a milk cow with 310 million tits!") to the deficit panel.

      It's not clear to me why you think these things are a mark of conservatism rather than a mark of liberalism. He did open his "negotiation" with liberal policies, just not quite as liberal as your definition of liberal. Single-payer wasn't going to fly, even with what he had in Congress. It'd have been a waste of his time to bother with that. He couldn't stack a deficit commission with liberals otherwise it wouldn't be taken seriously. Alan Simpson is a token fiscal conservative to legitimize the effort.

    29. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, I have to comment on your link to Ian Welsh. Ian doesn't show that Obama is "conservative". He does show that Ian Welsh is an idiot to an amazing degree. At one point, he fantasizes about nationalizing the entire banking system. Aside from a remarkably callous disregard for the US and its people who would lose most of their wealth in the process, he completely, and I do mean completely, ignores the fact that Obama won't be the president for the rest of eternity. If we actually did this, that would mean someone else, maybe someone with funny ears, would have the tools to epically fuck up on a scale unrivaled in US history and they would proceed to do so. That's how bad the idea is.

    30. Re: It's certainly easier... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      As a non-american I still haven't figured out what Glenn Beck has to do with the tea party.. and yet, everytime I hear about one, someone brings up the other.

      Lots of politicos and demagogues are trying to stake an ownership claim on it.

      I think originally it was just a diverse collection of people unhappy about one thing or another - misinformed about those things in most cases. But the way the politicos/demagogues are tugging at it and the way the media is covering it is making it more homogeneous. (Read: "Anglo Saxon FOX News addicts.)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    31. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Excluding single-payer advocates has the effect of pushing the set of options considered "mainstream" to the right. If I was advocating for single-payer, I wouldn't exclude advocates of (British style) nationalized health care, since they would help serve to make my views appear more moderate. As for the Obama plan, it's based on the reforms implemented in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney, and (at the time) promoted by the Heritage Foundation, which to me qualifies as at least moderately conservative.

      As for Alan Simpson, he isn't just a token conservative; he's one of the co-chairs. And the earlier quote indicates that he has total disdain for Social Security. He has also repeated the old zombie lie, "It's a bunch of IOUs".

      If Obama was centrist, he would have balanced the commission by appointing an ardent defender of entitlement programs as the other co-chair; someone who is in favor of taxing the rich. Let's look at what the Democrat co-chair has said:

      We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there. If we don’t make those choices, America is going to be a second-rate power, and I don’t mean in fifty years. I mean in my lifetime.

    32. Re: It's certainly easier... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Look deeper, and you'll see that the main difficulty for Obama was also the main difficulty for Bush: increasing entitlement spending as the baby-boomers age.

      Are you saying we're dipping into income tax revenues to pay out social security checks? The program is supposedly solvent for about 20 more years.

      Maybe you've noticed that your income tax and social security payments are separate items on your paycheck... A lot of people don't understand this whole "entitlement" thing. We've had politicians confusing Social Security with "welfare" for the past couple of months.

      It's not like they're taxing you so they can pay me more when I retire. What I get back depends on what I put in. But I guess misrepresenting the whole thing is a whole lot more effective as stirring the more ignorant parts of the population to come vote for you, so certain politicians rant about "entitlement" as if it were a hand-out.

      BTW, this will let you identify what the main difficulties for Obama are.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    33. Re: It's certainly easier... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1, Troll

      The reason liberals don't like Obama is because under his leadership every dollar of public good is bought with two dollars of corporate welfare.

      Cf. Health Care Reform

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    34. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ian Welsh wasn't writing about a permanent nationalization of the entire banking industry, but rather a temporary nationalization of banks that would be bankrupt if they actually valued their toxic assets at market value. This wouldn't be that different from what the FDIC does to bankrupt banks.

    35. Re: It's certainly easier... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Entitlement spending is a fairly common term when talking about the national budget.

      Social security is fixable without too much trouble, there are several options available for fixing it, if our duly elected representatives ever get around to fixing it. The biggest problem is medicare, as you can see from this graph. As you can see, medicare spending is the major growth problem moving into the future.

      Incidentally, onto that graph you linked to, which is also kind of old, you can paste another layer for Obamacare.

      --
      Qxe4
    36. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 0

      Excluding single-payer advocates has the effect of pushing the set of options considered "mainstream" to the right.

      So what you're saying is that Obama is a bad bargainer. Being a good bargainer isn't a characteristic of a liberal.

      As for Alan Simpson, he isn't just a token conservative; he's one of the co-chairs.

      Ok, so he's a token conservative co-chair. He performs some modest administrative activities in addition.

      And the earlier quote indicates that he has total disdain for Social Security. He has also repeated the old zombie lie, "It's a bunch of IOUs".

      Say no more. The "it's a bunch of IOUs" is just a factual description of how the Social Security program works. Excess funds are transferred to the general fund and promptly spent. There is some investment in infrastructure at the federal level, but it's really just an excuse to spend more on the political economy, the network of government bureaucracies and businesses that specialize in consuming public funds.

    37. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be factual to describe bonds as IOUs, but the phrase "bunch of IOUs" is a phrase used almost exclusively to describe the Social Security Trust Fund. It's misleading because the same phrase is never used to describe other debt, like the debt owed to the public.

      As evidence that the Trust Fund is just as legitimate as bonds held by China, consider the following fact: this year, revenue from payroll taxes fell short of expenditures. Where did Social Security come up with the funds to make up the difference and continue paying full benefits? From interest payments on the trust fund.

    38. Re:It's certainly easier... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Plenty of people simply wish he were doing something in some way positive, especially with the economy. Since he (and his team) clearly have no idea how the economy actually works, people are understandably eager for a sane alternative.

      Funny you should pick that example, the economy is *precisely* a case where Obama is clearly running straight down the political middle. The left has been calling for stimulus. The right has been calling for deficit reduction and tax cuts. And what do you get? A watered down version of both.

      Obama isn't doing the 'right' things for the economy because he's not doing what *either* side wants.

      Oh, and for the record, go read Krugman's latest article on the economy. The anti-Keyensians have completely failed to predict what happened post-stimulus. They predicted rising interest rates and ballooning inflation, and the precise opposite has happened. Meanwhile, as the stimulus wound down, the economy wound down with it. But, alas, Obama will compromise with the deficit hawks and the anti-stimulus folks, and once again won't do enough to jumpstart the US economy, and the result will be prolonged agony. All because the man is too busy trying to please everyone, thus succeeding in pleasing no one, and getting nothing done in the process.

    39. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      It may be factual to describe bonds as IOUs, but the phrase "bunch of IOUs" is a phrase used almost exclusively to describe the Social Security Trust Fund. It's misleading because the same phrase is never used to describe other debt, like the debt owed to the public.

      The obligation to pay is far weaker. There are serious financial penalties for defaulting on debt owed outside of the government. And the government controls the flow of Social Security funds. If it does threaten the solvency of the US (rather that continue to be a piggy bank to tap), they can merely reduce SS benefits while increasing SS taxes.

    40. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ian Welsh wasn't writing about a permanent nationalization of the entire banking industry, but rather a temporary nationalization of banks that would be bankrupt if they actually valued their toxic assets at market value. This wouldn't be that different from what the FDIC does to bankrupt banks.

      There are two problems with this assertion. First, it would be deliberately bankrupting the banking sector and destroying wealth, a lot different than what the FDIC does. Second, what makes you think it'll be temporary? Who is going to invest in a bank after a deliberate, "temporary" nationalization? Assuming the US government actually followed through and privatized the banking sector that it just took over, you'll just get high risk-takers. That's not the investment crowd you'd want for a bank. And they might not have the capital to buy the banks back (unless the government does a firesale, selling their assets in the banks for fraction of the price).

      Personally, I favor mark-to-market accounting rules. But changing the rules of accounting precisely so you can bankrupt the entire banking industry is the kind of thing a president should get shot for, if they were to actually do it.

    41. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As US government debt is denominated in US dollars, there's no reason the government's solvency can ever be threatened. Inflation could conceivably be an issue, but that's a different story.

      As for the obligation to pay being weaker, that's a political issue. So when conservatives say that the Trust Fund is just a bunch of IOUs, what they're really saying is that you can't count on Social Security because people like them might cut it. Which sounds a lot like the odd logic surrounding reform of Social Security: in order to prevent cuts in benefits (by 25% when the Trust Fund is exhausted, based on current projections), we must cut benefits.

    42. Re:It's certainly easier... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The mess the economy is in now is directly and obviously the fault of the federal government. Looking at the major events on a ten year timeframe I see Bush's prescription drug benefit, his failure to derail the Dodd/Frank housing mess, and his start of the bailout blunder. Obama has expanded the bailout from bad to hideous while defrauding bondholders and supporting antiproductive unions.

      Our election system does tend to narrow the range of ideas that government includes, but that has the benefit of (weakly) discouraging representation of nutcases. It may make more people unhappy with the government, but it tends to make it less likely that really damaging ideas become law.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    43. Re:It's certainly easier... by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Which makes me think...what would happen if abortion was brought up at a tea party rally? Would the religious extremists (who want the government to step in and enforce their morality) fight with the libertarians (who want the government to leave us all alone)?

      Yes. I'm a tea party organizer and we have a selected panel of fellow tea party folks that met at our tea parties who sit down and plan future events together. Forget the national groups and figures trying to claim the mantle of the tea party, because there is no national party in the Democrat/Republican sense, it is a grassroots movement. Though some people want to champion it for their own ego (Tea Party Express, Tea Party Patriots, Palin, etc), we, frankly, don't give a crap about them and, in fact, would prefer they quit trying to say they speak for us. We also take no money from outside groups, paying all of the expenses ourselves (which amounts to a couple hundred dollars per event for permits, port-a-potties, equipment rentals, etc - all of our advertising is word of mouth and we pay nobody to speak).

      Anyway, there are usually around a dozen people (out of about two dozen organizers total) per meeting (we generally meet monthly, but in the last month prior to an event, we meet weekly) and we constantly have to remind ourselves to focus on the things we agree on. We have the full range of opinions on the war (from lets do more, to support the troops, to do what it takes to win so we can get out, to we should pull out immediately and damn the consequences), abortion, religion (a couple devout catholics, some protestants, two jews, some evangelicals, a couple of atheists, a baptist, other people that don't mention their religion, two priests that I'm not sure of their denomination since they're grief counselors, etc), democrats/republicans/independents/libertarians/Independence (a NY third party), a former member of MoveOn, married people, single people, men, women, a transgendered person, blacks, whites, browns, etc.

      Anyway, every meeting, at some point or another, we all get distracted by the things that divide us, and we have to steer things back to what we're united on. Politicians love dividing us with those wedge issues since, as long as we're busy fighting with each other, we aren't paying attention to what the ruling class is doing to us. We pick an overall theme for our rally (the transgressions of our liberty, the breakdown of federalism, etc), inform the people that want to give speeches what our theme is, make sure the speakers aren't duplicating the same subject, and let them do their thing. We don't screen the speeches and sometimes, a speaker will say something that's worth a facepalm, but they're regular people, not professional speakers or politicians (in fact, while politicians are welcome to attend to listen, we refuse to give them a platform to speak), so they're going to make the occasional mistake, but even that is few and far between. The only time we felt we had to say something to reprimand a speaker, was when the guy that was supposed to offer a prayer didn't show up, but a minister (a black southern baptist guy if you want to know) that some outsider sent did, and then he proceeded to "damn the homosexuals" as part of his "blessing." Even the social/religious conservatives in the crowd cringed at that.

      There's a LOT of misinformation about the tea party movement being offered by those that flat out oppose it, those that don't understand it and those that don't want to understand it, a lot of which could be cleared up if people actually got off their asses to attend one instead of simply taking their favorite pundit or editorial page's opinion of them. Truth is, a lot of people don't care to understand what the tea party movement is really about, including a lot of slashdotters, so they dishonestly paint it with whatever brush it is they choose to tar it with. That's their right, but they should at least admit to themselves that they're intellectually dishonest. Of cou

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    44. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nationalization was debated in the Fall of 2008, and it's getting late, so I don't want to spend too much time digging through old references, but advocates of nationalization wanted something like what Sweden did, which was hardly disastrous. It was proposed as a way of recapitalizing the banks without the moral hazard of simply bailing them out.

      As for the present, Welsh is still in favor of nationalization based on the notion that the banking system is still in trouble because many banks are still insolvent.

      If you accept the premise that banks have only avoided bankruptcy by pretending that many of their assets are worth more than they actually are, then there are three options:

      1. Ignore the problem. The banks might be able to stay afloat long enough to make enough profit to become solvent. In the meantime however, the unhealthy banking sector might cause problems for the economy.
      2. Bail them out. This is very unpopular (see TARP) and creates moral hazard.
      3. Some form of temporary nationalization.
    45. Re: It's certainly easier... by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Are you saying we're dipping into income tax revenues to pay out social security checks? The program is supposedly solvent for about 20 more years.

      Maybe you've noticed that your income tax and social security payments are separate items on your paycheck... A lot of people don't understand this whole "entitlement" thing. We've had politicians confusing Social Security with "welfare" for the past couple of months.

      Social Security is already spending more than it takes in this year and until recently, was projected to do so beginning in 2018 anyway. They'll tell you that, at that point, they'll start taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, but the truth is, there is absolutely no money in trust. What there is, essentially, is a bunch of IOUs to be repaid from the general fund.

      To give a brief history of why Social Security is already borrowing from the general fund, we need to go back to the mid-60s. In 1965, Medicare/Medicaid passed... and the CBO's estimates for what they would cost were drastically low. Congress quickly found itself paying significantly more than what it was told they would cost. In addition, Vietnam began heating up. So, Congress's solution, was in 1967, to pass a law stating that any government trust which ran a surplus would allow the general fund to borrow the surplus with the promise to repay it later. Since 1967, we've been papering over our deficits with Social Security money to make it look like the federal government wasn't running even larger deficits. The politicians of that era, like all politicians, wanted to get re-elected, so the last thing they were about to do, was admit to their constituents that they had screwed up... so they put a bandaid on it and pushed the problem down the road for a future generation to have to deal with.

      Most of those politicians aren't in office anymore, in fact, most of them are buried by now... But here we are, suddenly finding ourselves mortgaged to the hilt so they could be re-elected back in the day... and our only choices are solutions that nobody is going to like - tell recipients that they aren't going to get the benefits they were promised (retirement age, amounts, wealth/income qualifications, etc) and/or to increase the tax the currently working generation has to pay. No politician wants to touch it (it isn't called the third rail of American politics for nothing) because doing anything to fix it would be career suicide... so, instead, we seemed destined to continue to do nothing, waiting for us to smack into the brick wall ahead.

      It's not like they're taxing you so they can pay me more when I retire. What I get back depends on what I put in. But I guess misrepresenting the whole thing is a whole lot more effective as stirring the more ignorant parts of the population to come vote for you, so certain politicians rant about "entitlement" as if it were a hand-out.

      You'll get back far more than you paid in.... it only takes a couple years to recoup the investment you made over your lifetime, while most people that collect collect for years, even decades, beyond their break even point... and, as I said, since the Trust Fund is essentially empty, yes, you will have to tax me so you can get paid when you retire. Sad part, is the people that are going to have to pay for the baby boomers weren't the ones electing the politicians that screwed us over, that would be the baby boomers and their parents that did that... but here we are stuck holding the bag.

      That Thomas Jefferson guy wrote pretty extensively about how immoral it would be for one generation to saddle future generations with debt, but, hey, we wouldn't want that to get in the way of the me generation. Truth is, the boomers and their parents handed today's generations a country worse off than what they were handed at their birth, but in their narcissism, they've convinced themselves that, not only is the country better off, but we owe them something on top of it for granting it to us.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    46. Re:It's certainly easier... by Arker · · Score: 1

      He is one of many republican operatives that are trying to subvert it for purposes of their own purposes. So far they seem to be moderately successful, but that appearance may be deceiving, and created more by media decisions as to 'newsworthiness' rather than the facts on the ground from what I have seen.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    47. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      As US government debt is denominated in US dollars, there's no reason the government's solvency can ever be threatened.

      Doesn't work that way. If nobody buys dollar denominated debt and the US continues to run a deficit, then the US goes into hyperinflation. At that point, it is insolvent.

      As for the obligation to pay being weaker, that's a political issue. So when conservatives say that the Trust Fund is just a bunch of IOUs, what they're really saying is that you can't count on Social Security because people like them might cut it. Which sounds a lot like the odd logic surrounding reform of Social Security: in order to prevent cuts in benefits (by 25% when the Trust Fund is exhausted, based on current projections), we must cut benefits.

      That's accurate. Some cut in benefits now to prevent a bigger fubar later. Keep in mind that the less burden that is placed on the US economy now (and the pointless shuffling of wealth under Social Security is a burden) means a bigger economy later.

    48. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      There's 4) bankruptcy. Proven method that we already employ now.

    49. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you were advocating against forcing the banks to admit that they are insolvent.

    50. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1
      Here's what I said on that.

      Personally, I favor mark-to-market accounting rules. But changing the rules of accounting precisely so you can bankrupt the entire banking industry is the kind of thing a president should get shot for, if they were to actually do it.

      For the edification of anyone such as the Secret Service who might be concerned, I was wrong to state that the president should be shot under such a flimsy set of circumstances. Yes, I consider the deliberate destruction of core parts of the US economy treason. That is one of the crimes I think should stay capital. However, the US does have a number of lawful methods for removing and trying presidents who abandon their oath of office and I would employ those efforts first (including the ballot box). To attempt to circumvent those methods would be to greatly overstep my bound as a US citizen. The only time I would advocate assassination or other violence is if the rule of law and dominance of the Constitution has been clearly and definitively revoked.

    51. Re:It's certainly easier... by mathfeel · · Score: 1

      Now, if you just we're talking about the saner end of the Tea Partiers then there might be some argument that they have actual ideas, mainly resembling the form "I like government policies that make life better for me but not for other people." Do I need to address what's wrong with that also or are we done?

      They don't seem like the type that appreciate the degree to which our government actually works. They are more like "I have absolute distaste for any government policies that I don't see any direct benefit for myself." America is generally a stable, safe society to live in, and the 300 millions of us has really won the birth lottery. Improvement? sure. Then there are large number of people who wished they have government like us, which mostly left people alone.

      --
      The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
    52. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose it depends on what precisely you mean by solvency. The government will never be unable to pay its debt, but it is true that the US does not have unlimited purchasing power and that hyperinflation is in principle one of the ways in which that limit could manifest itself. (But seignorage doesn't automatically lead to hyperinflation.)

      In the real world, however, Social Security is usually lumped into dire forecasts of runaway entitlement growth, but the runaway growth comes from health care costs. Social Security costs are projected to rise from 4.8% of GDP this year to around 6% of GDP in 2030 and then stabilize at that level (assuming that full scheduled benefits will be paid). Note that the democrat co-chair of the deficit panel lumped in Social Security with health care entitlements in his list of programs that will cause the US to become "a second-rate power".

      I won't say much about health care, except that per capita total US government spending on health care is already more than the UK spends on the NHS, so a saner health care system, while not necessarily reducing government spending, could significantly reduce private spending, some of which could be recouped in taxes.

      As for Social Security being "pointless shuffling of wealth", I don't think that the millions of retirees who depend on it for a substantial portion of their income would agree with that description.

      About "burdens" placed on the economy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "burden" or what justifies your claim about the relationship between the future size of the economy and current burdens. But you might find this article interesting.

    53. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on what precisely you mean by solvency. The government will never be unable to pay its debt, but it is true that the US does not have unlimited purchasing power and that hyperinflation is in principle one of the ways in which that limit could manifest itself. (But seignorage doesn't automatically lead to hyperinflation.)

      I already explained my position. Seignorage does lead to hyperinflation when the the debt is issued in a currency that not enough people will purchase.

      In the real world, however, Social Security is usually lumped into dire forecasts of runaway entitlement growth, but the runaway growth comes from health care costs. Social Security costs are projected to rise from 4.8% of GDP this year to around 6% of GDP in 2030 and then stabilize at that level (assuming that full scheduled benefits will be paid). Note that the democrat co-chair of the deficit panel lumped in Social Security with health care entitlements in his list of programs that will cause the US to become "a second-rate power".

      And 6% of GDP is somehow not terrible for a half-assed retirement program? Recall that historically, US government spending has been around 20% of GDP. So we have a third of that spending now eternally consumed by Social Security. There's a good reason the program gets lumped in the medical coverage problems.

      As for Social Security being "pointless shuffling of wealth", I don't think that the millions of retirees who depend on it for a substantial portion of their income would agree with that description.

      We only considering the opinion of retirees? How about college age students. Do they approve of paying 15% of their paychecks to Social Security for something that probably will pay much less than current when they retire? Public funds aren't free money. It all comes from somewhere, not just goes somewhere.

      Retirees are getting more out (with respect to time value of money and their expected earnings from Social Security) than they put in. Future generations aren't going to get this return on investment. In other words, the current and past retirees are the ones who collectively voted to keep the pyramid scheme as it is, they'll get the money, and most of them will die before the program threatens the future of the US. It's self-interest on their part. So pardon me, if I show some skepticism about what the opinion of millions of retirees are on this matter.

      My point remains. We're transferring wealth from the young of society to a growing pool of older people. The latter are at the end of their lives, have collectively built up considerable savings, and frankly, don't need the money as much. Meanwhile the workers are a shrinking pool (unless you increase immigration, which is only going to prolong the mess until those people become voters), who need the money we're taking from them for raising families, education, etc, and Social Security taxes add around 15% to the cost of employing a US citizen which harms the US's ability to compete globally.

      About "burdens" placed on the economy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "burden" or what justifies your claim about the relationship between the future size of the economy and current burdens. But you might find this article interesting.

      Perhaps you ought to read this article yourself. The article claims that economic success is a result of tailoring economic policies to the needs of your country. Social Security doesn't fill an economic need for the US. Neither does the public medical programs. My view is that if we were to follow the lessons of this story, we'd trim programs like these two that don't help us collectively.

    54. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree that retirees don't need the money as much. Older women get nearly half of their income from Social Security. And the elderly in the lowest income quintile (income less than $8956 in 2008) got 88.4% of their income from Social Security.

      Social Security taxes may be 15%, but that's not the same as adding 15% to the cost of employing a US citizen. If Social Security didn't exist, then there would be a greater need for employers to provide their employees with private pensions or simply higher salaries to allow for more savings for retirement.

      As for public medical programs: sure, the US government could cut expenditures by eliminating them. Setting aside the resulting suffering of the poor and the elderly, it's not clear that the resulting health care system would be more efficient. Currently, total health spending in other developed countries (which have universal health care) is about half that of the US.

    55. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Older women get nearly half of their income from Social Security. And the elderly in the lowest income quintile (income less than $8956 in 2008) got 88.4% of their income from Social Security.

      Then focus the Social Security program so that it is purely needs based and improve the incentives for retirees to continue working. I bet you'll see a vast reduction in the size of the program.

      Social Security taxes may be 15%, but that's not the same as adding 15% to the cost of employing a US citizen. If Social Security didn't exist, then there would be a greater need for employers to provide their employees with private pensions or simply higher salaries to allow for more savings for retirement.

      The point here is that the money would then go to the employers or the employees. And it removes a big cost of employing US labor.

      As for public medical programs: sure, the US government could cut expenditures by eliminating them. Setting aside the resulting suffering of the poor and the elderly, it's not clear that the resulting health care system would be more efficient. Currently, total health spending in other developed countries (which have universal health care) is about half that of the US.

      I agree that reducing or eliminating Medicare/Medicaid would not be sufficient on its own to fix the US's health care cost. There's a lot of problems with health care. But we have to weigh near future sacrifice from everyone, not just the poor and elderly now, again generations of suffering from a US that has descended into Third World status and abandoned the infrastructure (physical, legal, and social) that made it great.

    56. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there are political obstacles to means-testing an entitlement program with its own dedicated tax. I suppose one advantage would be that it's an opportunity to replace the payroll tax with something that isn't so horribly regressive. One problem with means tests is that if not carefully designed, they can lead to poverty traps, where the implicit marginal tax rate exceeds 100%.

      I still don't see how eliminating Social Security would necessarily greatly reduce costs of employing US labor. Without Social Security, workers would demand some replacement retirement program.

      Government social programs don't necessarily result in greater costs to businesses. Businesses executives in Canada have praised the country's socialized health insurance, with the Canadian divisions of the big 3 auto companies even signing a joint letter (PDF) supporting the system:

      The public health care system significantly reduces total labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to the cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers; these health insurance savings can amount to several dollars per hour of labour worked. Publicly funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada’s overall labour cost advantage in auto assembly, versus the U.S., which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada.

      What I'm really interested in, however, is what makes you fear that the US might descend into Third World status.

    57. Re:It's certainly easier... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, there are political obstacles to means-testing an entitlement program with its own dedicated tax. I suppose one advantage would be that it's an opportunity to replace the payroll tax with something that isn't so horribly regressive. One problem with means tests is that if not carefully designed, they can lead to poverty traps [blogspot.com], where the implicit marginal tax rate exceeds 100%.

      I still don't see how eliminating Social Security would necessarily greatly reduce costs of employing US labor. Without Social Security, workers would demand some replacement retirement program.

      Those workers which have the pricing power to demand a retirement program would get it. And those that didn't, just became 15% cheaper to hire, meaning a business can hire about 20% more of them for the same price as today. As to poverty traps, that's less of a threat to the future of the US than 6% (or more) of the GDP shuffled around by Social Security.

      What I'm really interested in, however, is what makes you fear that the US might descend into Third World status.

      There are several related reasons. First, the economics of US government spending is ridiculous and getting worse. It's a huge anchor on the US and its future. Second, this massive government has greatly increased power and lower accountability than a smaller government. Even if that doesn't result in the sort of tyranny common to what was the Third World, it will result in greatly increased corruption and inefficiency which are typical characteristics of Third World economies.

      I see it as a long slow process that has already been underway for a few decades. First, corruption increases as oversight declines and rent-seeking grows in prevalence. Second, the economy weakens under the heavy government spending and poor allocation of society's resources. Infrastructure such as hard assets like roads and bridges, public education, and the rule of law are already under threat. They will continue to weaken and decline. Businesses will continue to move activities out of the US, simply because the place grows less and less competitive. These processes will only be limited by whatever wealth continues to trickle in from outside.

      Worst case is that the US becomes balkanized and breaks apart. I think we already see the beginnings of this. For example, way too much racist and other divisive politics; the division of US citizens into those who pay taxes and those who collect services; and other growing divides in US society such as urban/rural and government/private cultural divisions.

    58. Re:It's certainly easier... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Our election system does tend to narrow the range of ideas that government includes, but that has the benefit of (weakly) discouraging representation of nutcases.

      Actually, it encourages representation of nutcases. Specifically, it naturally tends to a two-party system, and encourages both parties to seek an unshakeable irrational ideological core and to seek to use negative tactics to reduce the voting probability of the non-core parts of the electorate that might lean toward the other party; in a system that tends to more than two viable parties on a long-term basis, negative techniques don't work as well (and negative techniques that disaffect voters on both sides, but your main opponents slightly more than your own are counterproductive rather than beneficial as they are in a two-party system).

      It may make more people unhappy with the government, but it tends to make it less likely that really damaging ideas become law.

      No, it makes people more unhappy with government because it makes more damaging ideas become law, and puts more people who are damaged by those ideas in a position of having no effective recourse than would be the case in a system with more effective representation.

    59. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, he was Scrooge McDuck compared to Obama.

      Really???

      One turned record budget surpluses into the worst recession since the great depression.

      The other is following the advice of the top republican economists (not "opinion show hosts", but actual economists) to try to prevent a bad recession from getting even worse. For instance, I've never heard an economist suggest cutting government jobs or letting huge companies (full of primarily innocent employees) fail during a recession.

      Sorry to disagree on that point, since I agree with the rest of your post.

    60. Re:It's certainly easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like theyre "taxed enough already" despite taxes being the lowest theyve been in 50 years?
      or that obama is going to grab their guns? except hes not.
      or that obama is taking away their freedoms? except hes not.
      or their actual main gripe - theyre a bunch of crybabies that lost the last election and are now throwing a fit. thats the only one that is true.

  13. The Date by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The date they want to hold the rally is 10 October of '10. I.E., 10/10/10, however they have the poster written with the date as 101010, which is binary for 42, which, as we all know, is the answer to life, the universe and everything. Its the ultimate truthy thing. It's the ultimate nerd thing. Only thing its missing is a sign saying "Repent! The Singularity is Nye!" with the Science guy himself staring everyone down like Uncle Sam.

    1. Re:The Date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      42 isn't the answer to life, etc.; It's the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe, and everything. Small but critical difference.

  14. obligatory by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    insert obligatory comment illustrating how to modify your account settings to not see stories from politics section

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:obligatory by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      insert obligatory comment to tell you to go stuff yourself and learn how to capitalize and use punctuation

      Seriously. There is nothing wrong with politics on Slashdot. It should be tech centered. Failing that, it should at least be relevant.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh so one of my arch rivals.. the grammar nazis.. has a name

      notice how I pourposefully left out punctuation.. and misspelled purposefully.. it causes you pain... MUWHAHAHAHA

       

  15. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Funny

    Speaking from personal experience?

  16. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    Unless its Glenn Beck. I don't think anyone who isn't "one of them" can stand that crap for more than 5 minutes, if that.

  17. Re:Well, this is still America... for a little whi by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    Stop being an elitist, insulting curmudgeon, learn how to sign in to Slashdot, and your check will arrive in 4-6 weeks. See? Was that so hard?

  18. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, Beck got a bunch of Medicare recipients to stand around in the sun complaining about THE EVILS of government healthcare, so anything's possible...

  19. Think not what your country can do for you.... by Gaian-Orlanthii · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...but what you can do for your country TO GET RID OF GLENN BECK. I'm pretty sure that's how it goes.

    1. Re:Think not what your country can do for you.... by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 3, Funny

      GET RID OF GLENN BECK

      We choose to do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

    2. Re:Think not what your country can do for you.... by Duradin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Getting rid of Beck would be like getting rid of Hitler, you risk having someone competent replace him after giving the followers a martyr and renewed (frothing mad) fervor.

    3. Re:Think not what your country can do for you.... by Jeng · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't that the argument for keeping Jack Thompson around?

      He's been disbarred and shamed, no one has taken his place yet.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:Think not what your country can do for you.... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Getting rid of Beck would be like getting rid of Hitler

      You destroy everything he's built up until he commits suicide in his basement?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  20. Well, because it's a "young woman" ... by guanxi · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wasn't interested in this at all, until I read that it was a young woman who made the post to Reddit. Now I'm definitely interested. Does anyone know what she looks like? I mean, being a woman implies she's old enough, and young is certainly promising, but you never know. Before I get involved in something like this, I definitely want to know what she looks like. I've been burned on more than one blind date and Internet romance. Also, of course, is she married? Is she dating anyone? How seriously? Is he socially conscious? Because I am, and that's usually my hook, because I'm not really like a jock or anything, but some girls are into that. Also, we both like Colbert, so that's something in common too. Anyway, if anyone gets her email address or some pics, please send them to me, because this seems like a really cool idea from a young woman.

    1. Re:Well, because it's a "young woman" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heeeheehahahhaha...too funny!

    2. Re:Well, because it's a "young woman" ... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      "Is he socially conscious?"

      i hope that was freudian slip, see, because, well i'm really interested in you as well, and i hope you can look over the tiny fact that i'm not really a woman, i just play one on the internet. maybe we can get together, i really hope you are open minded and not like all the other guys who would get really angry when we met up. i know, the adam's apple gives it away up close, but from a distance, i'm quite stunning. to watch their smile go to shock and horror as i get closer, its such a downer. but for once, from you, i'm sensing a really unique vibe that you are the one, i would follow you to the ends of the earth. i'm buying my airline ticket now, i'll be at your front door until you show me the true love i know we share together already and is in your heart for me and true, don't lie to yourself anymore, don't resist. is there anyone else? its not a problem, i have a kit, it just takes a little modification of their food and then they are out of the picture permanently and then its just you and me forever and true as it was always meant to be since the day we were born

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:Well, because it's a "young woman" ... by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      So you're hoping she's a cute granola-muncher who is not totally turned off by nerds? I gather you're either hopelessly optimistic or have some sort of gambling addiction?

    4. Re:Well, because it's a "young woman" ... by guanxi · · Score: 1

      Uhhh ... I think we already met. I definitely remember you.

  21. Smug Internet people. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, you mean some smug Internet denizen came up with a way to launch a "hilarious" yet substance-free attack on a group she and all her cool friends just "know" is silly? What stunning news! Strawman used by baselessly smug group of left wingers against group of right wingers!

    What next, are we going to have a story about a group of right wingers painting left wingers as Anti-American and playing the Outrage Card to rouse the rabble?

    A pox on both their houses.

    Doesn't it get boring after a while, reveling in how clever you and your Internet buddies who have developed some lame shared-language of goofball Internet memes are?

    Oh, wait...

    1. Re:Smug Internet people. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Beck is that you??

    2. Re:Smug Internet people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman used by baselessly smug group of left wingers against group of right wingers!

      Baselessly? I assume you've never watched Glenn Beck?

      Doesn't it get boring after a while, reveling in how clever you and your Internet buddies who have developed some lame shared-language of goofball Internet memes are?

      That's called culture. Welcome to being a human.

    3. Re:Smug Internet people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you mean some smug Internet denizen came up with a way to launch a "hilarious" yet substance-free attack on a group she and all her cool friends just "know" is silly?

      Yeah, I hate comedy too. When is Stewart and Colbert going to start telling me what to do like the other pundits? I mean, yeah, it's funny, but worthless. Comedians need to be providing logical proofs and ideas to make things better. Leave the jokes at the door.

      If this happens, it would just be one big political comedy performance. It's only a rally in that it's a parody. If you think it's going to be some leftist love-in rally then maybe you don't have a sense of humor.

    4. Re:Smug Internet people. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ahh yes, the high culture of roflcat, i can haz cheeseburger, truthiness, and various derivations of movie quotes or song lyrics, etc... I guess any gaggle of Internet retards who can come up with some hilarious picture or saying and riff off of it for long enough is high in "culture".

      Ashamedly, I must admit I find the occasional bit of Internet idiocy funny still, but it's getting less and less so as I get older and you just keep seeing the same shit over and over, the same hangers-on latching to something and trying to become pseudo Internet celebrities by propagating it or something like it. I'm only 36, god knows what I'll think of those dipshits when I'm 50.

      If that's culture, my balls are monuments and my childhood feces drawings on the wall were art.

    5. Re:Smug Internet people. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0, Troll

      There's nothing comedic about it, though. It's the world's most boring inside joke. It's like two people who've known each other for twenty years and have an inside joke about one time when they saw a guy trip over his shoe-laces. They then proceed, 10 years later, to find any reference to "better tie your shoe-laces" hilarious and tell anyone who doesn't laugh that they don't have a sense of humor.

      I totally understand the attempted humor. Really I do. It's not exactly rocket surgery. I get it. It's just not funny because it's obvious.

      And it would certainly be a leftist love-in rally. That's what makes these people think they're so clever, they're both political and they have these awesome, deep senses of humor.

      I mean, doing a rally like Glen Beck, but it's actually (get this!)...MOCKING him and his followers and showing their various foibles! I mean, how original and hilarious would that be! Hey, I mean we could wear like bad fake teeth and confederate shirts, wouldn't that be totally hilarious because we're pointing out what rednecks they are!?

      Really... and this is clever?

    6. Re:Smug Internet people. by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hey, this would all go away if Beck would simply deny that he raped that young girl.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    7. Re:Smug Internet people. by khallow · · Score: 1

      What next, are we going to have a story about a group of right wingers painting left wingers as Anti-American and playing the Outrage Card to rouse the rabble?

      That's what you think. I have TWO Outrage Cards and a Sputter Multiplier good for the entire round of play. Be prepared to be pwned.

    8. Re:Smug Internet people. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I mean, doing a rally like Glen Beck, but it's actually (get this!)...MOCKING him and his followers and showing their various foibles! I mean, how original and hilarious would that be! Hey, I mean we could wear like bad fake teeth and confederate shirts, wouldn't that be totally hilarious because we're pointing out what rednecks they are!?
      Really... and this is clever?

      Wow. Are you talking to yourself? Do you realize that you literally just made up a strawman and debated it in your own mind?

      This kind of delusion isn't uncommon. It's just that you you also typed it out so others could see the workings of your diseased brain. You might want to see a doctor about that.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:Smug Internet people. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Baselessly? I assume you've never watched Glenn Beck?

      Another bit of idiotic drivel posing as argument. Let me walk you through a non-partisan rebuttal. What is Beck? He is an entertainer/journalist. What does that mean? A lot of people watch him on a regular basis. Now, if everyone who watched him developed a sense of smugness and an ideology opposite that which Beck advocates, then why do people still watch him? Why can he get a bunch of people to show up at the Lincoln Memorial? There's something not quite right with your argument.

    10. Re:Smug Internet people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes, an angry nerd went in and totally taught me a lesson by downmodding my posts! I'm so damaged by that that I will probably spend the night crying into a big old beer! Ahahaha.

  22. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards. We also have the diabolically evil faction, Wall Street evil, coal mining evil, big oil evil, the military industrial evil complex.

    Glen Beck's popularity spans all sorts of crazy, retarded and evil.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  23. I would fly out for it by nickdwaters · · Score: 1

    If Colbert did this, it would be an amazing speech. I would love to be there for it. If you haven't seen it yet, see his speech he gave to and about George Bush. It is on YouTube.

  24. Too much going on that day by The+Wookie · · Score: 1

    I was gonna celebrate the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything on 10/10/10.

  25. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, it's hilarious to hear a Tea Bagger proclaiming that the government should "keep their hands off my Medicare".

  26. They already had a counter-protest by Quila · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The race profiteer Al Sharpton led a small group to protest the "hijacking" of MLK's memory.

  27. Yes please ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... throw an anti-tea party rally. To be fair, you'd have to have your platform be the opposite of the tea party platform. So I guess the RT rally would be for a non-balanced budget, pro-emissions trade, pro-more complex tax system, anti-auditing the Federal Government, pro-escalating federal budgets, pro-earmarks, pro-tax increases.

    Sounds like we already have all that. So you are rallying for the status quo.

    Good Job you socially progress folks.

    You mock yourselves.

    1. Re:Yes please ... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So I guess the RT rally would be for a non-balanced budget, pro-emissions trade, pro-more complex tax system, anti-auditing the Federal Government, pro-escalating federal budgets, pro-earmarks, pro-tax increases.

      Don't forget pro-Muslim, anti-racist, pro-social safety nets, pro-helping the poor, pro-the constitution applies to everyone and not just the people I like...

    2. Re:Yes please ... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So... my comment is flamebait... but the OP isn't.

      Riiiight. Gotcha.

      Yeah, Slashdot is *definitely* the bastion of lefty socialists. Man, I can barely stand it!

    3. Re:Yes please ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      absolutely nothing about the OP says anything that goes against "the constitution applies to everyone and not just the people I like"

    4. Re:Yes please ... by Chowderbags · · Score: 1
      I'm probably feeding a troll here, but here goes:

      non-balanced budget

      The disagreement here is probably more what things each side wants to cut. I doubt many tea partiers want to cut military spending by any significant amount, but they're all for cutting out funding for anything they see as "socialism" (medicare, medicaid, social security, pretty much any social safety net, education, research and development, etc).

      pro-emissions trade

      If you pollute, pay for it. Yeah, I know, crazy.

      pro-more complex tax system

      No one is for this (well, maybe some tax accountants), but I bet that the moment we eliminate all the breaks for married couples with children, you'll get even more pissed off people.

      anti-auditing the Federal Government

      I'm all for it, so long as you don't support any claims of "executive privilege" in blocking some parts (regardless of if it's "your guy" in power).

      pro-escalating federal budgets

      Already addressed in the non-balanced budget part.

      pro-earmarks

      Again, I bet a whole bunch of tea partiers would start bitching if farm subsidies, local pork projects, and other such things were actually eliminated. But sure, let's complain about the current ruling party, even when they tend to be from states that get less from the feds than they give.

      pro-tax increases

      I'm all for tax increases on the incredibly wealthy (And for short term capital gains). I have no sympathy for those making over $1 million/yr. Maybe if someone, through their own actual labor or skills, could produce that much, I might shed a tear, but the vast majority of them are corporate executives, trust fund babies, investment bankers, etc. Hell, even high paid doctors don't often make more than $500,000 a year (and I'd call that reasonable), so either we've got some number of gods among men with skills we can barely conceive of, or we've got a bunch of highly paid twats who need to stop bitching just because they'll be slightly less wealthy.

    5. Re:Yes please ... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, the OP never said anything like that. And I never said he did. Many Tea Partiers (no, not all), OTOH, seem very happy with that idea. Here are three specific examples:

      1. They would like to force Muslims to register with the government (small government? Who needs that).
      2. They would like to prevent Muslims from building places of worship on private property (apparently property rights only extend as far as they want them to).
      3. They would like to eliminate citizenship for children born in the US (I guess the constitution isn't as infallible as they thought).

      Where "they" == a vocal portion of the tea party movement (I can't speak for how popular these ideas are, but they're voiced by many of the most ardent tea party mouthpieces).

    6. Re:Yes please ... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      BTW, I phrase #3 poorly. It should say "They would like to eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the US to parents who aren't, themselves, citizens".

    7. Re:Yes please ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straw man alert!

      Progressives on a par want a balanced budget, but don't want it entirely on the backs of the middle class which is disappearing due to GOP's (and some Dem), pro-corporate donor friendly policies. Progressives on a par want a tax system which is as simple as possible without disproportionately burdening the lower and middle class. Any progressive I've talked to are pro transparency and responsible spending in government, they just have different opinions than you as to what is responsible (for instance, fighting two, arguably unnecessary wars on a credit card, and keeping the expense off the books so that you and I don't recognize the burden we are creating for our children).

      Really, setting up a fictitious 'progressive' with easily demonized (and inaccurate) points of view is using straw man discourse. Surely you are an intelligent person who can debate people based on what they actually believe instead of constructing debating a hapless characature.

      I actually don't get the whole tax increase argument. Bush temporarily cut taxes on the upper class without funding the tax cuts with proportionate cuts in spending, and while launching two wars on credit. By the definition of 'temporary' with built in expiration dates, he never truly cut taxes. He just gave those who can most afford to pay taxes a 6 year break. Now that break is over and the tax rate is returning to normal, not increasing. If Bush had officially lowered the tax rate 6 years ago and the progressives were arguing for an increase, then you might have a point.

    8. Re:Yes please ... by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      You make a great point very well, and I think anyone who wants to fight this has to be able to answer your points bullet bu bullet. I don't have those answers (yet), but don't stop with just this list of things they stand for.
      So far the tea party has avoided some issues by simply claiming that the proponents of those issues don't represent official policy, but I have seen a number of followers who are just fine with bailouts if the money is coming to them, mainly to pay their unpaid back taxes that they built up because the felt no moral need to pay the IRS. Or a predilection to racism, homophobia and the usual raft of holier than thou lies and general shittyness that comes with claims to "fiscal conservatism". They feel no need to pay for health insurance, but the state should scrape them off the road after an accident and fix them, they were fine with pissing money away on wars when they felt vengeful and xenophobic, but resist to their last breath any measure to sort out the resulting mess.
      Feeling that other people should bear their burdens is not fiscal responsibility, it is unwarranted entitlement.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    9. Re:Yes please ... by saxoholic · · Score: 1

      Have you seen The Colbert Report? He would mock it by doing it to the extreme in a way that showed the ridiculousness of their ideas, so he would not need to do the opposite. And yes, that part of the platform makes sense, but they have so many other ideas that are baseless and insane.

    10. Re:Yes please ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Rather than trying to divine what you believe and what you think the RT rally would be, I'll make these points:

      Muslims are in word and deed the leading murderers of innocents in the world.

      The claim of liberals to be anti-racist is generally contradicted by their actions.

      "Social safety nets", particularly unemployment compensation, discourage production. Many people who get paid for not working are not desperately willing to do anything to make money.

      Government "helping the poor", when such help consists of handouts, usually makes life worse for the poor, in a manner passed on from parents to children.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re:Yes please ... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Has it occurred to you that people can make millions of dollars a year because their services are worth that much? When there is a price for something like that, it actually means something about these things called scarcity and value. Prices aren't arbitrary numbers that you can just change at a whim, again they mean something, the literally aggregate all the information about scarcity and subjective value into a neat little ratio that you can agree to exchange for or not, depending on your own marginal valuation. If a personal CEO isn't worth that much to you then just don't hire one, no one is forcing you to hire him! I mean, that's just common sense I thought.

      Why would anyone want more taxes on anyone? Do you realize how much money it takes to produce goods and services? Are you so shallow that you think we can just steal all that away from the job creators of the world and that won't have any effect on production?

      Do me a favor and take a real economics course and learn about alternative cost and supply and demand.

  28. Thank you USA ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watching US politics & medias is so good. It make us feel (with "us", as in, "the rest of the world") like we have competent politicians and trusthworthy reporters.
    And that come from someone living in France. And we have Nicolas "Send those Tsigane in Bulgaria" Sarkozy.

    I mean...
    From an external point of view, taking Glen Beck (and most of Fox News) seriously is quite nonsensical.
    Seeing him having such a popular support...

    Oh well. At least, it does provide some kind of bleak amusement to the rest of the world (oh, that, and the fundamentalist christians, too). Let's just hope that's one thing that Europe won't adopt in the next decade, as we like to do with whatever stupid stuff you imagine.

  29. Fools All by Dr.+Grabow · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Reality is a very complex problem.

    To think that ANY political ideology, no matter where it sits on the spectrum of political thought, provides an optimum framework for solving the world's or nation's problems is the sign of a very small mind.

    1. Re:Fools All by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh no, it's not......I've defined my political ideology as the very one that provides an optimum framework for solving the world's problems. Simple. The implementation part is a little difficult, but I've got the theory nailed!

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Fools All by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      And underestimating the ability of well-financed people of a more or less singular political persuasion to tempt the rest of society into following them is naive, IMO. Right now the money is flowing to the Right, because they've promised the short-term preservation of wealth and profit, and spoke nothing of the inevitable decline thereof.

      Ideas from every position should be evaluated, vetted, and chosen or rejected based on their merits. However, there are these things called human ambition and greed that generally turn that (painfully slow) sausage maker into one that furthers the interests of a few by exploiting our desire for certain things (money, comfort, security, monoculture, etc.) immediately. Every now and again we shoo away the prominent offenders, but if history is any lesson, they always come back in one form or another.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  30. Re:Truthiness by natehoy · · Score: 4, Informative

    In order to understand the difference between the term "truth" and Colbert's made-up word "truthiness", you'd have to, you know, actually watch the show at least once.

    Colbert is a comedian who openly uses lies and manipulative humor to get laughs among his followers. He mocks everything in sight, with a double helping reserved for himself. He's in the business of entertainment, not news. He's a complete attention whore because that's what pays the bills.

    I don't know the term for the opposite of "comedian", "tragedean", maybe? Whatever the term would be, that's Beck. He openly uses lies and manipulative tragedy to get outrage among his followers. He derides everything in sight, with a double helping reserved for anyone who he thinks his followers might agree with him on. He's in the business of entertainment, not news. He's a complete attention whore because that's what pays the bills.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  31. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget the businesses that just appear to randomly have the TV on Fox News 24/7.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  32. Transgressing the boundaries by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

    One of the most critical skills in satire are knowing where the boundaries are. Exceed the boundaries and you go from respected to despised.

    Colbert's genius is that even those who he is mocking can go along with joke, perhaps ignoring or not understanding that they are being mocked.

    To pretend to be organizing such a rally is funny, but to actually hold such a rally is ridiculing the rally participants too directly. The offense would be impossible to ignore, and that's not Colbert's style.

  33. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you could be correct about your stereotype, speaking for myself, attending such a rally would only be a bonus added onto other interests. I've long wanted to visit Washington DC to see the Smithsonian and the other museums there (is that nerdy enough for you?). Plus I'm a "foreigner", so maybe that would count against me, but I am fully supportive of freedom and liberty. I celebrate Bastille Day even though I'm not French or in France, so why not an issue as important as "Restoring Truthiness" in the US of A?

    And FYI, I've got dependents living in *my* basement, so get off my sun-drenched, horribly-maintained lawn! You're crushing the dandelions.

  34. Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuff by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    Beck was a morning radio dj for years, I think his biggest non-political gig was at WPGC in Wash. DC where he was a morning drive "Zoo Keeper". He spun records and yucked it up with callers. Anyone who knows anything about radio knows that djs are mostly f*ed in the head and have lots of problems. Beck is not unique to this, although he does appear to have turned his life around, although I don't get why he turned from Catholicism to Mormonism. That's like going from Communism to Radical Islam. But seriously, lets not take Beck too seriously. He was a loser dj who pulled a Limbaugh and found success in being a political pundit. He's not a big deal. Some think he is, but he's not. Screw him. Better yet, ignore him.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  35. In Praise of Ideology by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

    The very complexity of the world means that you need organizing principles (that is, ideologies) to help make sense of it. To believe in one's ideology too completely, and to never questions one's ideologies, are serious mistakes. On the other hand, to be a complete political pragmatist without ideology to give structure to this complex world is likely unworkable.

    1. Re:In Praise of Ideology by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      QFT. +1 Insightful if I had points left.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  36. Not religious by killmenow · · Score: 1

    Glenn Beck is not religious. He's a money machine. He knows how to make money. Right now that's by appealing to the "religious right" in America.

    1. Re:Not religious by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Glenn Beck is not religious. He's a money machine.

      Those things aren't exactly mutually exclusive. Have you heard the term "mega-church"?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Not religious by lgw · · Score: 1

      The mega-churches and the religious right don't much like each other. They really are different demographics to market to. The mega-churches cater to people who like to feel they're part of something larger than themselves, without being annoyed by some preacher going on about sin and Jesus and boring stuff like that. These days that's a far larger group than those who really believe all that bible crap. "Evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are not interchangable, and less so now than ever before.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  37. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Ya but when you take all that away, what do you get?

    Canada :)

  38. 101010 by snookerhog · · Score: 1
    amazing!

    that's the same combination as my luggage!

  39. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by spun · · Score: 1

    Oh, Canada! We stand on cars and freeze.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  40. Great idea. by khasim · · Score: 1

    "This is my sign. There are many like but this one is mine."

    "Free ice cream and puppies! See the man in the van."

    "This sign for rent / Your message here / Reasonable rates."

    "I like turtles!"

    "Available for on-camera interviews"

    1. Re:Great idea. by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The best counter-protest signs I'd seen were from the attendees of Comic-Con this year when the Westboro Baptist Church (The "God Hates Fags" guys) protested the event:

      http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/07/22/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/

  41. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by ideonexus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good point. Colbert fans don't have a billionaire Obama-hating family to bus them out to the event like Glenn Beck does.

    --
    i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
  42. *Sigh* More liberal BS by MrHyd3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is this liberal garbage on SlashDot? I didn't see anything on Beck on here and pray it wasn't because it should be here either. Please ppl, stop the ignorance.

    --
    -------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
    1. Re:*Sigh* More liberal BS by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Since when is this liberal?

    2. Re:*Sigh* More liberal BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not going to look it up for you, but Beck's gathering was covered on slashdot. Believe it was under something like, "where exactly is the lincoln monumnet". Anyway this is a community site, if a bunch of liberal stories show up, its because most the posters are liberal. No one is forcing you to read the story.

    3. Re:*Sigh* More liberal BS by Iburnaga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My troll-dar is pinging.

      --
      iburnaga.blogspot.com
    4. Re:*Sigh* More liberal BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make up for conservative garbage like you.

    5. Re: *Sigh* More liberal BS by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is this liberal garbage on SlashDot?

      Probably because of reality's well-known liberal bias.

      (Hey, we're only 87 subscribers apart!)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re: *Sigh* More liberal BS by MrHyd3 · · Score: 0

      Damn you for being 87 more lower than me!

      --
      -------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
  43. A more accurate count by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    The reason it was so clean afterward is there were only 50,000 people there.

    There were a lot more than that.

    Let's compare crowd estimates from the Colbert rally using similar pictures, shall we?

    And instead of simply posting a derogatory reply for appearing to support the rally, you could instead argue against the calculation to come by the range of estimates (low end was 90k).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A more accurate count by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Gee golly I didn't realize I had to argue against the calculation or that my comment was derogatory.

      It was first and foremost a joke. Hyperbole is one way to make fun of others. I thought the hyperbole was obvious. Because even on the low end nobody has said it was so few. It would seem one might be able to put two and two together and come to the rational conclusion that I can't be serious, ergo joking.

      Why it's modded insightful is beyond me. It was also meant to highlight that no matter how many people show up to a Truthiness rally if Colbert has one there'd be all kinds of claims about crowd size and rightfully so in order to mock the whole craziness of crowd size BS anyway.

    2. Re:A more accurate count by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Gee golly I didn't realize I had to argue against the calculation or that my comment was derogatory.

      Your reply certainly is, and you obviously lowballed the estimate. So yes, you were and are being derogatory, you just aren't hiding it as well as you think you are.

      It was first and foremost a joke

      Yes, those being derogatory often defend themselves by claiming "it was just a joke".

      I was just presenting the correct information, which you seem awfully defensive about. Why so defensive and derogatory in response (defining hyperbole, claiming it was obvious, etc.) if you really were joking? Seems more like you screwed up and are now trying to save face.

      So instead you did just exactly what I asked you politely not to - you came back with a snarky response to a factual post that didn't talk meaningfully about crowd size and calculations, attacking me personally instead of my point.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:A more accurate count by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

      you could instead argue against the calculation to come by the range of estimates (low end was 90k)

      The low end was 78k, from the guy in Arizona who is a "crowd estimation expert". His estimate was 87k +/- 9k, so from 78k-96k.

      Now, I'm more willing to believe a guy who has a system and method for accurately estimating crowd sizes than I am a website who is analyzing several low-resolution oblique photos and trying to apply a single formula to the entire crowd. The photos the researcher from Arizona used were taken by a company flying balloons from high overhead to lower down, for the specific purpose of taking pictures for estimating the size of the crowds.

      Their site is here: http://airphotoslive.com/.

      Here is an article describing the guy's methodology with examples:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html

      I'm much more willing to trust that guy to come up with a reliable estimate versus someone trying to guess at the average croud density and offering a range between 86k and 200k.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:A more accurate count by killmenow · · Score: 1

      You were there, weren't you? You seem awfully sensitive about it. Beck supporters will overestimate the crowd size. His detractors will underestimate it. Same as every other political rally. But I have no dog in this hunt. I don't care how many people were there. Your link seems to provide as accurate a count as anybody else possibly could.

      I'm not defensive about your information. It's correct for all I know or care. I was joking. I didn't realize Internet is Serious Business.

      Lighten up.

    5. Re:A more accurate count by spun · · Score: 1

      Pajamas Media? Really? You point to amateur "analysis" by a hyper-partisan blog as "factual?" Please, there were no more than 100,000 people at the rally, at most. Do the math. By your estimates, everyone in the entire vicinity must have been attending the event, rather than mere summer tourists there by chance, and they all must have been standing shoulder to shoulder. Funny how you can see plenty of green grass showing in all the pictures, the crowd was not that dense.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:A more accurate count by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      You were there, weren't you? You seem awfully sensitive about it.

      Nope, I have better things to do. I left a clue about that in the original post. But it's pretty amusing you think of that as a slam, that someone actually attending in person is automatically disqualified from telling you how many people were there (my apologies if you were there and thus have a more personal estimate to offer us). It's like telling someone sitting in a restaurant what the specials on the chalkboard are and then arguing when he says none of the items you listed are there.

      No, all I have to go by are the images and calculations based on them. Basically I just like to correct disinformation. It's kind of a hobby, since the world so full of it someone has to. That seemed like the most realistic calculation not trying to inflate or deflate the numbers.

      Since don't seem to have anything to say about the estimate itself or the method of calculation, I'm glad you agree with my assessment. The rest of your post is rather meaningless then, why did you type all that other stuff if you agree with the numbers? I mean, if you just attack the person posting it all seems rather pointless since you aren't making a real point or even using your brain.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:A more accurate count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it was so clean afterward is there were only 50,000 people there.

      There were a lot more than that.

      Let's compare crowd estimates from the Colbert rally using similar pictures, shall we?

      And instead of simply posting a derogatory reply for appearing to support the rally, you could instead argue against the calculation to come by the range of estimates (low end was 90k).

      Pajamas Media? As in, "major contributors from Little Green Footballs butter our bread" Pajamas Media?

    8. Re:A more accurate count by realnrh · · Score: 1

      Actually, the only group to have taken steps to create a believable estimate was CBS News, who hired a company to take aerial photography of the crowd from multiple angles. Their estimate was 85,000 plus or minus 9,000 - so the 'low end' was 76,000 and the high end 94,000.

      --
      Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
    9. Re: A more accurate count by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The National Park Service used to provide formal estimates, but quit doing it not too many years ago.

      Probably because they were displeasing various groups by not supporting their fantasies about how many people were there.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  44. Re:Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuf by Abcd1234 · · Score: 0, Troll

    But seriously, lets not take Beck too seriously.

    It's not him you should be worried about. It's his racist, bigoted, narrow-minded, insane followers you should be worried about.

    You know, the people who think Obama is both a radical Christian (reverend Wright!!!!) and a radical Muslim. The people who believe all Muslims are terrorists, and who are now setting fires to mosques, or protesting their construction (apparently human rights are only for Good Christians (tm)). The people who believe that the US is now, somehow, descending into hell, and the only solution is to return to some fictitious past that never existed, when men were men, women were women, and everyone feared god and were good and honest and never did anything wrong, ever ever ever, until those damned socialist hippies came in and ruined it all.

    Frankly, I'm waiting for the first domestic terrorist attack on a mosque... that should make for an interesting debate, in which I'm sure the radical right-wing hypocrisy will reach levels as yet unseen.

  45. Whoever keeps modding Wyatt Earp Flamebait, by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stop it. It isn't flamebait. I may be a liberal and Wyatt may be conservative, but even I can tell he's not here to incite flames.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Whoever keeps modding Wyatt Earp Flamebait, by blankinthefill · · Score: 1

      This must be why we see so few 4 digiters posting anymore... they've all burned out!

    2. Re:Whoever keeps modding Wyatt Earp Flamebait, by rwa2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I prefer to refer to it as "passing the torch to the next generation"

      *sits back and relaxes*

      So, kids, run forth... and get off my lawn! (I just recently had it sprayed with volatile highly-combustible compounds)

    3. Re:Whoever keeps modding Wyatt Earp Flamebait, by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

      Luxury. In my day, we had to torch kids with whale oil.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  46. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    Stand on cars...

    wtf? I must be missing something...

  47. Re:Truthiness by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1, Troll

    I don't know the term for the opposite of "comedian", "tragedean", maybe? Whatever the term would be, that's Beck. He openly uses lies and manipulative tragedy to get outrage among his followers. He derides everything in sight, with a double helping reserved for anyone who he thinks his followers might agree with him on.

    I believe the term you're looking for is "demagogue":

    A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

  48. I wish I could favorite this by lullabud · · Score: 1

    What a great description in that 2nd paragraph

  49. Re:Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuf by jameskojiro · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    You forgot the Libertarians who want to return us to a period of politcs between 1790-1890.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  50. The Genius of the People ... by niteshifter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... is never absurd.
    The "genius" of the "elites" usually is.

    For those US citizens who don't get the genius reference: It's our Constitution. See Federalist Papers, for starters.

    1. Re:The Genius of the People ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So you smack down the genius of the elites by citing with approval...documents written by the elites? Wow you sure showed yourself!

  51. Re:Truthiness by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

    I would define Colbert's "truthiness" as true or wise in a philosphical sense, independent of whether the facts actually support it or whether it has anything to do with facts at all.

    Thus a statement can be manifestly false, and yet contain considerable truthiness. Its veracity transcends reality.

  52. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by spun · · Score: 1

    I don't know, it's something I heard Lady Mondegreen sing once.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  53. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by OpinionatedDude · · Score: 1

    I miss the old days when somebody could be wrong without being crazy, retarded or evil.

  54. Re:Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people love to bring up Rush Limbaugh's drug problem, yet never mention that your hero Obama was pretty much drug addled in his younger years.

  55. Re:Truthiness by jeffmeden · · Score: 0, Troll

    Tragedian. The internets agree... Although demagogue or fearmonger or "Certifiable" come to mind too...

  56. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

    I do too, I really do.

    But I don't deal well with willful stupidity. Ignorance can be forgiven. Sticking you head in the sand not so much. Not by me anyways.

  57. 180k just from the subway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the metro numbers, there were 180,000 extra people on the subway compared with other August Saturdays. That's just the subways. Scientific sounding numbers are fine, but hard numbers rule. Giving any number under 180k is laughable.

    1. Re:180k just from the subway by Nimey · · Score: 1

      No, I'm going to need the Examiner's methodology. How do we know they didn't count the people who went to Beck's speech twice? How do we know there wasn't some other event going on that day which might account for more ridership?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:180k just from the subway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Divide the subway ridership number by two (think about it), then subtract out the attendance at the counter rally. To miss these obvious points is laughable.

  58. Off-topic much? by thethibs · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This would be a great topic for Al Jazeera, but why is it on Slashdot?

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
  59. Sorry, you don't really believe that do you? by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your comment is in line with "elect Republicans and they will take your Social Security away" or "Elect Democrats and they will raise taxes"

    Even if somehow one party managed to control two thirds of both houses and the white house the courts would still be there as well as the court of public opinion. Even while Democrats had a majority in both houses they rarely got anything done. When they did they resorted to parliamentarian tricks and deception. Hell we saw bill after bill passed without Congressmen knowing what was in it and somehow this is better than what might come later?

    If anything government is dysfunctional and they have made it so that the rules protect them in their rule. The tea party that many associate negative connotations with is that part which was absconded with by people looking to make money and increase their power base. As was seen in Alaska, the real tea party does not obey the Republican party and does not cede to the Democrats either. It is still up in the open what they may become but if all we have are people spouting FUD what we will have? Simple, the same crap we have now where both parties play people off each other so that THEY can stay in power. So while they cheer your inane comments, put there by endless talking heads on each side, nothing changes and that is the best solution they could hope for.

     

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  60. Re:Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuf by interval1066 · · Score: 1, Troll

    "I'm waiting for the first domestic terrorist attack on a mosque..."

    This is supposed to be like some kind of new thing to be worried about? Something that Beck is bringing in fresh and new? Lets not forget that Lee Harvey Oswald was a raving lunatic LEFTIST, and more recently we have the nut job who took down 32 students at Virginia Tech a few years ago, John Malvo & John Allen Muhammad, the beltway sniper duo, McVeigh & Nicols... so all these are to be blamed on Beck too? Its now like you take Beck out and all these problems are solved. So stop talking nonsense.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  61. What..... by Crosswind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What exactly has Beck said that is incorrect or false lately? Examples please..... just curious.

    1. Re:What..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Politifact is your pal. Glenn "Pants on Fire" Beck's, not so much.

    2. Re: What..... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Informative

      What exactly has Beck said that is incorrect or false lately? Examples please..... just curious.

      At the rally he said the break in building the Washington Monument was "during the Civil War".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:What..... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      In early August Beck said we're in for a severe stock market fall soon. The time frame for his prediction runs out in just a few days. Unless something strange comes about, he's wrong on that one.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:What..... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      In early August Beck said we're in for a severe stock market fall soon. The time frame for his prediction runs out in just a few days. Unless something strange comes about, he's wrong on that one.

      But it probably helped his sponsors market investments in gold.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  62. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  63. Re:Every so often... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder why people use the term journalist to describe employees of broadcast networks who wouldn't know a journal from a urinal.

    I was so hoping that cloning would have led to an updated version of Walter Cronkite by now...

    But I'll give Beck one thing though, he's been able to sculpt a persona from scratch, using whatever he had access to along the way. I mean, he's a a guy who struggled to better himself, who worked with what he had. He started as a rodeo clown where he had to roll in it. He adopted a religion that was full of it. And he learned to sling it like he was doing battle with Goliath.

  64. Re:Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuf by Abcd1234 · · Score: 0

    Lets not forget that Lee Harvey Oswald was a raving lunatic LEFTIST

    What does left or right have to do with anything? If the left was drumming up support for protesting the construction of Christian churches, I'd be disgusted and worried about that, too. Wouldn't you?

    more recently we have the nut job who took down 32 students at Virginia Tech a few years ago, John Malvo & John Allen Muhammad, the beltway sniper duo, McVeigh & Nicols

    I think you and I both know those weren't populist movements. Those were crazed individuals, which is hardly the same thing as an organized protest against a religion, like we're seeing in NYC.

    so all these are to be blamed on Beck too?

    Should I blame your raving idiocy on this strawman I'm waving about? Shall I beat it with this stick I have, now?? How 'bout I knock it down! Yeah, serves you right!

  65. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  66. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by meustrus · · Score: 1

    Then there's also the liberals who watch Beck to laugh at him or find out what the other side thinks... ...then backs away slowly and weeps for the state of our country.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
  67. What if Beck is a Colbert? by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    I just can't shake the image from my imagination that Beck is doing the same thing as Colbert, just taking it to an even greater extreme where he is doing his parody from inside the political movement he's parodying and playing it so straight that nobody gets it, seeing just how far he can push the gag before people catch on.

    1. Re:What if Beck is a Colbert? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well of course. Beck, Limbaugh, and Coulter, it's pure performance art. The only difference between them and Colbert is that Colbert plays the whole thing for laughs, and makes few secrets that it's satire. The real eye opener here is just how fucking stupid the Teabaggers are that they don't realize that they're falling for a joke. Now I still Beck is an immoral pile of crap, not because of what he says, but because he doesn't wink at the audience like Colbert does.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:What if Beck is a Colbert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, because Matthews (Hardball), Olberman (Countdown), and the other woman I can't stand (doesn't understand base load power when interviewing Duke Energy exec and admits her own ignorance yet keeps up her position), they aren't performance art. Only the conservatives you mention area.

      "Teabaggers are that they don't realize that they're falling for a joke"

      Will that still be your position if they win in November? After all, you're on a threat about hosting a counter rally Colbert-esque. And promoting the fact that it's all an act even by the right, despite the real ramifications, and call that a joke.

      Then again, you don't seem to get the Teabaggers position. It's strange reading this /. thread, about straw man arguments and what not, and seeing it applied only against the right when you're fully ignoring the left's and your own use of it. I find the Teabagger's a little odd, but I understand their argument. Just as I understand a liberal's. I just don't agree with them, but if I had to pick a "more correct" version, I know where'd I lean, and it's not the people who are mouthing off being proud of how smart they are on /.

    3. Re:What if Beck is a Colbert? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The worst thing that could happen to the GOP is a Tea Party takeover. We've already seen what shining stars like Rand Paul are all about. The Republicans have long been able to use Libertarians as their useful idiots, but if the tail begins wagging the dog here, I think that vast nebulous thing called Middle America will recoil in horror. The long-term Republican policy of whoring itself out to the religious right has already gone too far, but to actually be taken over by Tea Party types, that's burning way to many bridges back to the center.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:What if Beck is a Colbert? by maraist · · Score: 1

      now now now. You see a lot of depictions of ill-informed tea party goers, but this is hardly representative. Many honestly want too privatize S.S. (essentially undoing the social safety net because they, their friends, and those they care about already have their golden parachutes). Many believe military spending is the only legitimate use of taxation. The ones you CAN throw popo at are the ones that say the best way to cut our deficit and taxation is by reducing foreign aid and by reducing pork-spending (which collectively is like 1.5%). Which is the majority of American's polled - not just lipton something for nothings.

      Then I guess you can include the white-supremisists (disguised as American values people, or old people), the anti immigration people, the America-firsters, and my personal favorite, the God-wants-us-to-winn ers. Never mind the sage advice to hope to be on God's side.

      --
      -Michael
    5. Re:What if Beck is a Colbert? by maraist · · Score: 1

      "Will that still be your position if they win in November? After all, you're on a threat about hosting a counter rally Colbert-esque. And promoting the fact that it's all an act even by the right, despite the real ramifications, and call that a joke."

      The joke I think the parent is referring to is about the Republican's leading them to think they are supporting the causes of the tea party. That the exact same people that spent us into oblivion are going to have their interests at heart. When all most people in power care about is appeasing their biggest doners - sure they have a say about which doners they want to pick - it's called picking a party. Now there are some legitimate tea party people.. People that I wouldn't trust to run a 7-eleven. Those I would truely and honestly believe feel the need to minimize taxation. Because.. well, it only takes about 50 IQ to figure out that the government forces you to pay taxes, and that in doing so it costs YOU hard-earned money. Easy fix.. Run for congress and don't do it anymore.. problem solved.. YEAH, if only thousands of years of governance could have figured that out!!! I applaud the tea-party movement for it's innovation.

      Oh, by the way, the dumb f*ks don't even know (or acknowledge) what the tea party was.. It was NOT a fight for anti-taxation.. It was a fight against being a second class citizen - where taxation occurred without any local benefit, nor with any autonomy. Sure, once established, US congress had minimal taxation (predominantly on foreign trade because people didn't understand the ramifications of doing so at the time). But it was also a time when for the next 160 years we would not have a standing navy/army to fund. Nor an interstate road to maintain (for the same standing army).

      --
      -Michael
  68. All this "intelligence" here by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    and only a handful get it.

    Hmmmmm.

  69. The Lone Conservative... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do listen to talk radio and have listened to Beck however I don't intentionally tune to him. While I believe him to be a bit "whack-a-doo", not unlike many devout entertainers, all of the stories I've heard from him begin in political reality. Whether you choose to see it as a reality is what divides left from right. The "Tea Party" folks aren't all nut-job racists; a great majority are those, normally quiet, people that work hard, save money, plan retirement, invest, start businesses, and hire employees without depending on the government to save them. When that government, aided by a vocal majority of largess leeches, aims at their pocket books they have every right to get mad and gather, protest, vote, veto, etc.

    Having been visiting /. for over 15 years I'm shocked at the amount of, what appears to be, left wingers here. It's never really come up but am I in the conservative minority on Slashdot? Younger people are typically left-wing. As you get older, and if you're responsible, you'll begin swinging right... unless you're a career politician...

    1. Re:The Lone Conservative... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Younger people are typically left-wing. As you get older, and if you're responsible, you'll begin swinging right... unless you're a career politician...

      Usually what happens is people form opinions and rarely ever change them. Younger people for more liberal ideas and the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" (such as they are) changes over time so people so by the time a person who was liberal in their youth dies, the same opinions they've always held are now labelled as "conservative".

      Or in short, old people mostly become set in their ways and don't like change, as they perceive it. Most people in general, have incorrect beliefs about what actually happened in the past and don't bother to research the truth. For example, the issue of taxation. Never in our history has taxation been as lacking in progressiveness (usually considered a liberal trait) as it is now. When "liberal" politicians try to move taxation to a more progressive level, like it was under Reagan or even Nixon, our society labels that as "liberal" and the opposite of conservative, even though it's actually moving things to be more like they used to be an always have been. Of course that's because the labels "liberal" and conservative" aren't about values, but about dividing society into two competing groups because it's the easiest way to get votes.

    2. Re:The Lone Conservative... by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but consider who it was that established those "progressive" (usually a code word for socialist or communist, used by those without the courage to call themselves what they really are); the left. It just took this long to get the tax rates as low as they are now, but they are still way too high. Think of it: for income in the top marginal bracket (currently 28%, IIRC) and when you add in the state cut for those states that have an income tax, you lose somewhere in the area of 50% of your top-bracket income to taxation. Half. That's insane. Sure, it used to be worse when the top bracket was an unbelievable 90%, but that doesn't mean it's not still way too high.

      You'd have a hard time convincing me that income tax should have any brackets above 10%, or even that it should be progressive at all, but even if you could convince me of that to some extent, a 28% marginal tax rate is ridiculously high.

    3. Re: The Lone Conservative... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having been visiting /. for over 15 years I'm shocked at the amount of, what appears to be, left wingers here. It's never really come up but am I in the conservative minority on Slashdot?

      It's hard to say. A lot of people used to vehemently defend the Iraq war, but as the public soured on it they became a distinct minority. We still get a fairly large number of anti-Islam anti-Muslim posters... I was shocked by the views I saw posted here (and modded up) on a story a week or two ago.

      But maybe all that doesn't really reflect conservative/liberal politics.

      Traditionally we've had a very large number of "Latter Day Libertarians", by which I mean self-described Libertarians who apparently don't care about anything but gun ownership, taxes, and laws that might restrict their ability to become filthy rich.

      Also... The most vocal group isn't necessarily the biggest group. We should have a /. poll on political orientation.

      Younger people are typically left-wing. As you get older, and if you're responsible, you'll begin swinging right... unless you're a career politician...

      This is conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it's true. I have certainly gone the opposite direction.

      Also, I suspect liberals and conservatives disagree intensely what "responsible" means.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:The Lone Conservative... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but consider who it was that established those "progressive" (usually a code word for socialist or communist, used by those without the courage to call themselves what they really are); the left.

      You seem to be missing a noun in your sentence. And progressive isn't a code word in terms of taxation. It's a well established economic term referring to a progression of taxation rates that correlate to wealth or income rates.

      It just took this long to get the tax rates as low as they are now, but they are still way too high.

      That's a perfectly valid opinion, but my point was, why is it considered "conservative"? It's changing the status quo and if we're labeling things consistently should be "radical" if anything. Labeling it "conservative" only makes sense if "conservative" just means what republican candidates say they want (but never vote for I guess).

      You'd have a hard time convincing me that income tax should have any brackets above 10%, or even that it should be progressive at all...

      Nor was it my intention to do so. I would, however, recommend you read a bit about economic if you have the time and try to create a model of exactly what you think will happen to an economy without progressive taxation and to look at the economies of countries that have tried it in the past and the few asian/eastern european countries trying it now and see how well it has been working. Without sufficient progressiveness of taxation to counterbalance the wealth condensation principal, wealth only moves one direction until the system becomes unstable and collapses.

    5. Re:The Lone Conservative... by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      However, insofar as those who think that progressive taxation is a good idea are typically leftists, I'll stand by my code word assertion even in the context of taxation.

      Why is wanting low tax rates considered conservative? Because we conservatives want low taxes and liberals want high taxes. Note that I'm not saying "Republican" here; show me a Republican who claims to be a conservative and the odds are somewhere north of 50% that I can show you a liar.

      What would happen in an economy without progressive taxation? Hmmm...

      1) The government would have far less money to spen^H^H^H waste, and would have to seriously re-think spending;

      2) All the people who currently think they are getting some kind of free government money would - under a flat tax - quickly become acquainted with the TANSTAAFL principle when instead of getting free money they had to pay their fair share like everyone else;

      3) Those same people in point 2 would very quickly start holding government accountable; the nightmare of the vast majority of both Republicrats and Democans.

      You know, I'm sure, that 100 years ago, the United States did not have an income tax; the primary means of taxation was property taxes. The income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax to help finance our (mistaken) involvement in WW I. That's why you should never, ever support a temporary tax or a temporary increase in an existing tax; it's an even better gauge of when a politician is lying than "her/his lips are moving."

      Yes, I know that a property tax is a form of progressive tax, but it's a much less dysfunctional one than an income tax and tends to better encourage liquidity in the economy while simultaneously avoiding penalizing financial success the way any income tax - but especially a progressive one - does.

      By the way, yes, I do believe that corporate income tax should be abolished, at least on domestic profits; it's just smoke and mirrors to help keep people in the dark about how much they are really paying; we're the ones who really pay that corporate tax, because it just gets folded into the price we pay for goods and services as part of the cost of doing business, the same as with paying bribes in corrupt countries.

      And then, the income tax should be abolished completely; government could still pay its bills, after some badly needed re-alignment of priorities.

  70. Same mistake by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Pajamas Media? Really?

    So since you disagree but don't say why, are you telling us all you are too stupid to refute the calculations made?

    They seemed pretty simple to me, and based on numbers generally accepted for crowd size analysis. Perhaps if you study them harder the reason why you disagree will come to you.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Same mistake by spun · · Score: 1

      Dude, I just DID refute them. This amateur partisan hack used made up figures, and a simple sanity check shows us that for the higher figures to be true, the entire mall would have to be packed shoulder to shoulder, and you would not be able to see so much green grass. People at the Beck rally were laying out blankets to sit on. If there were as many people as Beck claims, there would have been no room for sitting.

      Here is an explanation of how crowd size is estimated by professionals. Today, we use aerial photography and computers to make highly accurate crowd size estimates.

      http://www.slate.com/id/2265622/

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  71. Re:Truthiness by meustrus · · Score: 1

    The key difference between Colbert and Beck, according to parent, is that when Colbert is over you chuckle and turn off the TV, but when Beck is over you go out and vote. Colbert is arguably more transparent about being a manipulative attention whore, because to get people to laugh they have to get the joke.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
  72. Chef has some advice for you, then by spun · · Score: 1

    Chef: You see, chidren, sometimes a man needs to be with a woman.
    But sometimes, when the lovin' is over, the woman just wants to talk and talk
    and talk and talk.

    [song]
    But a prostitute is someone who would love you
    No matter who you are, or what you look like.
    Yes, it's true, children.
    That's not why you pay a prostitute,
    No, you don't pay her to stay, you pay her to leave afterwards.
    That's why I pays a lot for prostitutes! Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. James Taylor.

    James Taylor: A prostitute is like any other woman
    They all trade somethin' for sex and they do it well.
    Chef: And that's why I say-
    Chef and James Taylor: Prostitutes! Prostitutes! They-
    Chef: Oohhhh [sees principal]
    James Taylor, what the hell are you doin' in here?!
    Singing' about prostitutes to the children! Get out of here!

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  73. Kicking the habits - Obama and Bush by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    To be fair to both parties, you have to mention that GW Bush was arrested for drunk driving in 1976. He even admitted to "drinking too much" before he quit. So you could say that GW was alcohol addled in his younger years.

    But GW Bush decided to stop drinking after his fortieth birthday. I commend him for that.

    Obama, it appears, used drugs in high school and college but also gave them up. You have to commend Obama for that AND the fact that he admitted to drug use.

    I suspect that you could add lots of public figures to this list, those that, in their early years, abused drugs and/or alcohol. That seems to be a common thing in some circles.

    Rush, unfortunately, should have been old enough to know better. The only 'saving' grace is the fact that people in pain will often do stupid things to push back that pain. It would be nice if Rush were a bit more vocal about the stupidity of prescription drug abuse AND if the media reported said activity.

    Almost any public figure who abuses drugs will have their abuse mentioned, whether said abuse happened during their youth or in recent years. It appears to be one of those things that people do, especially when their 'hero' is criticized by the other side.

  74. Re:Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuf by echucker · · Score: 1

    Sure, not a terrorist attack, but sometimes all you need is spark of stupidity to set off something nasty....

  75. What bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual war in Vietnam was fought to a military standstill which resulted in the Paris accords (look it up). The North agreed because it did not see winning the the war even with Soviet support, and opted for a Korean variant of having half a country for its Communist slavery (I am from the USSR, and I know what GULAG is - you apparently don't).

    After that, due to useful idiots in the US and much Soviet-paid "international" activities, the US cut its military aid for South Vietnam, and the Congress passed a law banning US troops deployment in Vietnam _whatever happens_. The Soviets ramped up their aid, and soon South Vietnam lost. Mass executions, death camps, and GULAG followed -- and their history has not yet been written, Vietnam being still controlled by the same party that organized them, so go figure what the murder count is and how much of it is being blamed on the US (standard Soviet tactic -- having executed 40K captured Poles at Katyn, Bolsheviks blamed it on the Nazis).

    Vietnam is a brutal dictatorship. There is no "capitalism" or "free market" there, what they have is a Nazi-like economy where the exploiting class is allowed a "capitalist" lifestyle as long as they suit the state; the moment they don't, they are stripped of "their" wealth and freedom. The low price of labor is guaranteed by machine guns; average folks have no rights.

    Please be aware that some people who have seen "socialism" first hand also read /., and refrain from repeating the party line.

         

  76. I'm sorry! by Glock27 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm sorry that your education system has failed so many of you so miserably.

    I'm sure that someday most of you will gain enough real-world experience to understand why 0bama is a disaster and folks like Glenn Beck have to raise the alarm. In the meantime, I think we'll be OK given the way things are going into November. :-)

    It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea. - Robert Anton Wilson

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  77. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by realnrh · · Score: 1

    Google 'Canadian National Anthem.'

    --
    Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
  78. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards. We also have the diabolically evil faction, Wall Street evil, coal mining evil, big oil evil, the military industrial evil complex. Glen Beck's popularity spans all sorts of crazy, retarded and evil.

    Then there's also the liberals who watch Beck

    Apparently combos of crazy, retarded, and evil too!

  79. Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bear.

    Costume.

  80. what substance gives people delusions of grandeur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thin Glenn Beck is crazy enough to believe himself.

    That's scary... it would take some special kind of crazy for that to be true.

    Hmmm, what substance gives people delusions of grandeur and eliminates all doubt, even when it's warranted?

    Glenn Beck has admitted hundreds of thousands of dollars of cocaine use.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpVi6JwjjGU

    And "excessive or prolonged use, the drug can cause [...] paranoid delusions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine

    And even his own official web site says he was "consumed by alcoholism and drug addiction" in at least one era of his life. (ref: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/about/)

  81. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point. Colbert fans don't have a billionaire Obama-hating family to bus them out to the event like Glenn Beck does.

    When the Obama campaign opens the books on all the Democratic sponsors, like the one he allowed to shut down Los Angeles a week back, I'm sure you'll eat enough crow concerning what people are sponsoring what party members.

  82. Sharpton supports inverse Racism, MLK is a rapist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are the two most disgusting people that I've ever seen, right up there with the jewish Illuminist-created KKK. Martin Luther King led his protest when the ghettos back in Jew Jersey were forcing black-Americans to pay rent ~ $75 per-head while all other races were allowed to pay-rent for the entire chamber regardless of head-count. Something about that matter reflected prejudices by landlords that their property was damaged more by black-Americans than anyone else, and I don't know if it was meant as a cultural damage of having them in the area or the fact that they seriously damaged the verry building structure. Martin Luther King led an aggrivated mob of racists that looted and burnt buildings as they marched to political centers for speaching rights, then they led the movement to avert my Civil Rights by supplementing their civil rights to handicap over my Civil Rights. There is a difference, and the more you help someone be more "civil" is only a fact that their legislated handicap of compelled domestication will ruin them while intimidating the competition around them. Then there is the fact that Martin Luther King stole his Thesis from a jewish professor at a University, that he gained political and funding assisting from known Communist infiltraitors, and he raped three white women the night before that CREATURE known as Martin Luther so-called King was shot dead.

    Then you have Al Sharpton: a man the openly associates with another man Kamau Kambon that calls for the open KILLING and RAPE and THEFT against ALL "Whites" claiming they are mutants of African culture kicked out of Africa into Europe and spreading to America. Of'course he moves politic outside of the light of the Media, because it would show him for what he is.

  83. Many missed the point by Efialtis · · Score: 1

    It wasn't a tea party rally, it was a "Restoring Honor" rally...
    To hold an "anti-Restoring Honor" rally is just plain stupid...what? we WANT to be dishonorable?
    I'd be surprised if Colbert or anyone else could get more than Beck...just look at the last "icon" to have a rally there in D.C., what was it, back 2 years ago, the inauguration? Not even the charismatic leader of "hope" and "change" could draw more than 200,000 people.
    Face it, people are fed up with the direction things are going. Colbert, if he is serious, would only make it worse, or prove the point.

    --
    --E--
    1. Re:Many missed the point by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Except the people who, you know, pay attention realize that it was a teabagger rally; it was just dressed up pretty to get attention.

      There's a reason why Beck felt moved to tell his followers to leave their signs at home.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:Many missed the point by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      If you are trying to prove a point I completely missed it.

      The promotion line was "Leave your signs at home, bring your children; come as you are and leave stronger."

      Was there anything actually objectionable to the event? No? Then why wouldn't you want to put differences aside and say "this is something I can agree on?" This is exactly the sort of partisanship that we can legitimately put aside, that doesn't involve compromise, and yet for some reason we still wonder why no one actually does. No, instead we still want to play the politics even when it's not a political event. Amazing.

    3. Re:Many missed the point by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Because Beck and Palin are normally so hyper-partisan. There's reasonably no way this wasn't political in some way, no matter what self-serving story they tell you.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:Many missed the point by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, they didn't actually /say/ much at the rally; the content seemed to be "mouth nice words, and also we need to turn to the Christian god", i.e. us heathens aren't Real Americans.

      Lastly, with the hyperpartisanship of the previously mentioned, the only ones who'd physically show up were teabaggers anyway.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:Many missed the point by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      They aren't puppets to a political party if that's what you mean, they were some of the few people actually taking on the Republican party while Bush was in office. Beck was especially unpopular over his critique of Bush over the patriot act, immigration, the economy, and power-grabbing in general. How is that "hyper-partisan?" You are trying to tell me that their mere appearance is supportive of party over principle, but somehow when Obama calls for an end to partisan politics, I will assume, that is creditable?

      Did you actually watch the event to come to the conclusion it was worthless or was political some how?

      Why would anyone who puts down "hyper-partisan" showings at the same time call this a "teabagger" rally?

    6. Re:Many missed the point by Nimey · · Score: 1

      *snort* Let me draw a diagram on this chalkboard showing how your comment is linked to the Nazi Party.

      In fact, it's making me tear up.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Many missed the point by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you managed to answer not a single one of my questions and at the same time just mock people, I'll take that as a concession. Until you want to either answer my questions or refute my points, I'm noting this as troll.

    8. Re:Many missed the point by Nimey · · Score: 1

      You're free to interpret my posts in any way you please, sonny.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  84. Re:Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuf by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

    Is Obama a Muslim? Highly unlikely, although there are doubtless Muslims who regard him as something like one due to his paternal line.

    Is he a radical Christian? Most certainly not. Wright is a racist, narrow-minded bigot (probably not insane, but then, neither are those who listen to Beck) and doesn't strike me as being terribly Christian. Obama himself doesn't really seem like one, either; I think he just plays a Christian on TV.

    If you think the left hasn't seriously screwed things up here, you just aren't old enough to know just how much better it used to be.

  85. Re:Lets not get too crazy about all this Beck stuf by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with that? The days of the framing of the Constitution were certainly far freer than now. If those people were around today, they would not recognize this nation.

  86. They didn't give methods though by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I am inclined to believe his as well, but they do not do crowd estimation any more often than the guy I did the link to (the link states they do this infrequently) - of course, they had higher resolution photos.

    But it would have been nice to see the density estimates he used within the grids. The other guy basically used a grid technique as well, to separate out more sparse areas from the more packed ones. So it's a question of the numbers you use, per grid.

    Given the subway use increase the other poster reported, half the number of additional subway riders still seems too low.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:They didn't give methods though by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I don't know why it should seem low, I'm not sure how many people you would expect to show up at a rally by Glenn Beck. I'm more inclined to trust the guy's expertise though, that's the same guy who estimated the Obama inauguration at 800k and had the support of conservatives for that one. I think it's fair to say he doesn't show a political bias.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:They didn't give methods though by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I don't know why it should seem low, I'm not sure how many people you would expect to show up at a rally by Glenn Beck.

      Because if you had read my message the increase in subway riders was 180k.

      That makes an estimate of 85k seem fairly low.

      I don't know why you assume things about people instead of using real data.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:They didn't give methods though by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Because if you had read my message the increase in subway riders was 180k.

      So what? What does that mean? Does that mean that every person who made the subway average higher went to the Glenn Beck rally? Was that the only thing going on in the city that day? Even if every one of those people did in fact attend the rally, what does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about the total rally attendance, we're talking about the size of the crowd at a single point in time. The pictures were taken around 11am, an hour after the thing officially started. The official stopping time was 2pm. There could have been 200k people there, but no more than 90k at a time.

      I don't know why you assume things about people instead of using real data.

      Yeah, that's some great data you got there. We can draw a lot of conclusions from the basic fact that there were 180k more subway riders on average in the DC metro area. That data totally outweighs everything else.

      Thinking that what you like or dislike is the same as what everyone likes or dislikes

      I didn't say anything like that, and I didn't mean that either. I simply think it's fairly unlikely for a crowd of old retirees (Beck's primary audience) to find themselves traveling to DC to attend a political rally in the middle of the summer.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:They didn't give methods though by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      So what? What does that mean?

      That means 180k more people were riding the subway in DC on that exact day. A separate figure derived over a whole day means nothing to you compared to a single snapshot at a specific time? That truly indicates nothing at all to you? Really?

      Does that mean that every person who made the subway average higher went to the Glenn Beck rally?

      Obviously not every person. But equally obviously, that was a factor.

      And since the subway was not even the only way to reach DC....

      We're not talking about the total rally attendance

      Actually we are, that is the phrase used in all the media.

      Yeah, that's some great data you got there. We can draw a lot of conclusions from the basic fact that there were 180k more subway riders on average in the DC metro area. That data totally outweighs everything else.

      That along with the photo data actually is pretty hard data, if you look at how crowd estimates are done.

      I simply think it's fairly unlikely for a crowd of old retirees (Beck's primary audience) to find themselves traveling to DC

      And you have no idea who Beck's audience is I guess, because if you look at photos from the crowd that is not who is there. SInce you don't have that part right at all, is it not unlikely your expected estimate would also be off by quite a lot?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:They didn't give methods though by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      That means 180k more people were riding the subway in DC on that exact day. A separate figure derived over a whole day means nothing to you compared to a single snapshot at a specific time? That truly indicates nothing at all to you? Really?

      It means nothing conclusive, and that should be obvious. I'm talking about people at a particular rally, and you're talking about people riding the subway. While possibly related, those are obviously two different things. You can't seriously claim that all 180k of them had to have attended Beck's rally, and that's the only thing I'm getting at. The number of people riding the subway doesn't prove anything. What about people who rode it twice, both directions? What about people attending the MLK rally, or other events in the city?

      That along with the photo data actually is pretty hard data, if you look at how crowd estimates are done.

      Right. 78k-96k, according to the professionals.

      And you have no idea who Beck's audience is I guess, because if you look at photos from the crowd that is not who is there.

      First, Beck's audience is known. It's a fact that his primary audience is composed of aging retired people. I'm not just assuming that, it's a fact. That's actually the case with all of Fox News, not just Beck's show. The average age of the viewers of Fox News is 65. Since Beck is on in the afternoon, his audience probably tends to be a little older.

      Secondly, this is my point exactly. His core audience is likely not to show up, it's likely to be younger people willing to travel in order to go hear people like Beck and Palin speak at a political rally in DC. Hence, not his primary audience. They were at home watching it on TV.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  87. Re: Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    I've long wanted to visit Washington DC to see the Smithsonian and the other museums there (is that nerdy enough for you?)./quote?
    Almost!

    Allow two full days to see the Smithsonian and related museums along the Mall. Less if you don't like art. Being a Slashdotter, you'll probably want to start with the Air & Space thing, to make sure you have enough time for it.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  88. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    You mean the real one? That I had to sing in school? Yeah, I got that, I've just never heard that lyric replacement before.

  89. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

    I dunno if spun was aiming for the Funny mod, but had my mod points not expired, I would have modded him insightful.

  90. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by anegg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So far I and my employer have paid just over $57,000 in to Medicare, and I estimate about another $60,000 will be paid in on my behalf before I reach retirement age. That is $117,000 taken from me by the government as payment in advance for providing me with Medicare services when I reach retirement age.

    Ignoring the time value of the money that was paid in by me and on my behalf over my entire working lifetime (i.e., interest it should have earned), if that money was paid out on my behalf every month starting when I reach retirement age, it would fund a health insurance plan at $300/month for 32 years.

    So, in some sense, it would be "my Medicare" that was being manipulated, wouldn't it?

  91. its more than a strawman by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Artists can use lies to point out the truth - fallacies can be used to make indirect points just as fictional stories can represent truths and the bible can be allegorical but can be "true".... (Which directly ties into another related issue-- the people who take the whole bible literally...)

    Colbert routinely makes silly arguments which are the same or analogous to the ones he is parodying. Many of the fallacies he uses are the SAME and he uses the COMMON method of illustrating false reasoning with crazy examples. Satire uses such methods ALL THE TIME. Another method is reductio ad absurdum, which is more difficult to use seriously because argumentative people can nit pick the whole path - a formal one is more like a legal contract and is not funny. Anyhow, many times I've seen him use the SAME words with the variables swapped out as the people he is parodying - yet some people attack him for doing what he is attacking others for doing using satire! He illustrates hypocrisy all the time; unfortunately, he may be making it more acceptable in the way he does it. (Just like Archie Bunker made racists more likable.)

    Some people think it is a sad sign that Colbert can be viewed as REAL by so many people.
    This is a result of those viewers poor judgment and today's sick political climate. Irony, logical fallacies, reductio ad absurdum, and other satirical methods that intentionally go to extremes of analogy for humor and effectiveness end up MIRRORING the crazy extremists who seriously take positions too close to the satire!! I can't recall any right now but there were a few times with Colbert was ahead of the right wing fringe!

    1. Re:its more than a strawman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only I had an account with mod points so I could "+2 Excellent post" that!

  92. Fox plays dumb by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

    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.

  93. Jesus and Moses by vaporland · · Score: 1

    Jesus and Moses went fishing in the Red Sea.

    Once their boat was well beyond the horizon, Jesus said "You know, I miss the miraculous old days, fire in the sky, loaves and fishes, healing the sick. Things just aren't the same anymore"

    Moses replied "I know what you mean. People don't appreciate the miracles we used to do."

    Jesus said "My favorite one was when you parted the Red Sea - I'd love to see that again just for old times sake"

    "Really?" Moses replied?

    "Absolutely - C'mon, please?"

    Moses stood in the boat and raised his arms. The sea before them parted for as far as the eye could see. When he lowered them, the sea returned into the gap.

    "Amazing!" Jesus cried. "Just... amazing!"

    "Well, you were pretty good back in the day too" replied Moses. "My favorite was when you wowed them by walking on water. I'd love to see that again, just for old times sake..."

    "Really?" said Jesus.

    "Yes, please, it would mean a lot" replied Moses.

    Jesus gingerly stepped to the edge of the boat and placed his right foot upon the water. He stepped forward, and immediately plunged to the bottom of the Red Sea.

    Moses quickly reached in and pulled him back into the boat.

    "I know I can do it - I know I can" said Jesus. "Let me try again."

    Once again Jesus stepped to the boat's edge and then onto the water, and once again he sank to the bottom of the Red Sea.

    Moses pulled him out again. Sputtering water, Jesus exclaimed "I don't understand! I used to be able to pull that one off without a hitch. I just don't get it..."

    Moses replied "I think the last time you did that, you didn't have those holes in your feet...."

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  94. Furethermore... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I don't know why it should seem low, I'm not sure how many people you would expect to show up at a rally by Glenn Beck.

    And another angle just occurred to me as well, the fact that is show is very popular. I'd have nothing to do with anyone from Jersey Shore. but they could easily draw that kind of crowd.

    Thinking that what you like or dislike is the same as what everyone likes or dislikes is the path to self-delusion.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  95. ah yes, machine-sortable dates by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    very useful for organizing my collection of concert bootlegs...er, school documents (well, those too)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  96. Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I was quite willing to have fun in the sun all day for the Lollapalooza music festival; I might have felt the same about a Colbert stunt.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  97. This Machine Kills Fascists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modded +5 too, bitch. You are the minority. Yes, it is fun slapping down fascists like you and Beck. I don't hate you or Beck. I hate what you do and what you stand for: the complete subjugation of the human spirit and the elevation of the sociopathic class to the highest positions of power. But you will lose and freedom will win, humans are not the dumb sheep you seem to think they are.