Slashdot Mirror
Stewart and Colbert Plan Competing D.C. Rallies
Lev13than writes "In a direct retort to Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have announced competing rallies on October 30th. Stewart plans to host a 'Rally To Restore Sanity' on Oct. 30 on the National Mall in D.C. for the Americans he says are too busy living normal, rational lives to attend other political demonstrations. Colbert, meantime, will shepherd his fans in a 'March To Keep Fear Alive.' 'Damn your reasonableness!' Colbert said. 'Now is not the time to take it down a notch. Now is the time for all good men to freak out for freedom!' Stewart, meanwhile, has promised to provide attendees with signs featuring slogans such as 'I Disagree With You But I'm Pretty Sure You're Not Hitler' and 'I'm Afraid of Spiders.'"
Kudos to you, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
You make my world seem slightly less irrational with each and every day.
Does anyone else see this as nothing more than free commercials for Comedy Central and Viacom?
I mean, I totally get the idea of a "return to normalcy" and getting people back to being rational, but JS and SC are doing the EXACT same thing they're bitching about Glen Beck doing...
when you see the vicious, fear-addled, hysterical fearmongering and demagoguery going on in the usa, you can easily grow despondent and depressed about the future of this country
and then you see that the antidote to this vile sleaze, the ray of sunshine, is simple humor, and irony, and sarcasm
the antidote to the poisons of the lowest basest emotions and motivations from the human character are the fruits of the higher faculties, and simple cheerfulness and confidence
if the drek you see being assembled into herds of mindlessly angry propagandized partisan sheep on the far right depresses you, do not give up heart, nor give up hope: just give a good laugh, and smile, and beat the zombie horde back into the dustbin of history where they belong
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
He is my hero. Intelligent, sophisticated, funny and always hits the spot.
Go John! Kick Glenn's retarded butt.
How can you call it a march for moderates when the only person who has every voted for a Republican will be the lone comedy reporter from Fox News?
Talk about misleading.
The article doesn't mention the fact that the organizers have yet to be granted a permit for the joint rally. Also it should be noted that if granted (which is likely), the "million moderate march" will be limited to no more than 25,000 people, per the permit application.
"Stewart, meanwhile, has promised to provide attendees with signs"
You mean just like a union rally where the sloganeering is handled not by the people attending but the people rallying them up....
How original.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Try not to take the "I'm afraid of Spiders" thing too seriously".
For those who don't know our two national treasures:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
http://www.colbertnation.com/home?xrs=sem_g_col_colbert_report
What is with all the frontpage articles that were shown everywhere else online 3 days ago.. Stewart and Colbert made their announcement on Thursday night
I'll summarize the comments on this article:
* I'm right
* No your not
* YOU'RE!
Have you heard of google? I think you'll be amazed at what it can be used for.
Also, shut up.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jon+Stewart
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Stephen+Colbert
Given that the summary doesn't say they're on cable it seems likely that you do have an idea.
Sometimes satire ends up revealing more about the satirist than the target. And if the public turns out to be on the target's side, then the satirist ends up being perceived as mean-spirited and out of touch. Satire always draws blood, it's just a question of whose.
Never forget that Air America was a dismal failure.
We don't need yet another new programming language. Let's just pick an existing language and fix its flaws.
Love them for not doing the not-from-our-country crap. Probably the only newstertainment show I watch from the US for the same reason.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
I dont have cable either, I live in New Zealand but i still know who these two men are. Maybe you need to learn how to use this thing called "The Internet".
But you do apparently have the internet, through which one can view their shows.
For someone who trots out his "I don't watch TV and therefore am better than you" sign as often as you do you either are very bad at doing feigned ignorance well or are doing willful ignorance very well.
I disagree with you, and I'm pretty sure that's something Hitler would say.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
I think not finding the Daily Show or Stephen Colbert funny says a lot more about the critic than it says about Stewert, Colbert, or their writers. I'm not saying what it says about the critic, but it sure says something. Something having to do with broomsticks and bodily orifices.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But it appears by doing this they are drawing more attention to Beck's rally. No publicity is bad publicity. And their LIKELY small turnouts (don't expect to see a lot of people there for a prank) is just going to put more attention on how huge the Beck attendance was.
I think it's funny what their doing. I think they should talk it up on the she and get laughs, but I think if they actually go so far as to HOLD a rally and the attendance is low it's going to be spun that the right had a massive turn out (which is true), while the left is unsupported, a conclusion that can not be drawn from lack of attendance.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
I don't have cable. And I live in Australia. But I've watched their shows several times. It's fun to watch these shows because it's fun to observe how idiotic the american political system is. But the fact these guys exist is also reassuring that the (formerly) most powerful country in the world hasn't completely lost the plot.
He can't. He's still using a Commodore 64.
Please remember that these guys are backed up by Viacom. That is who ultimately owns the shows. They are on board with this, of course (wouldn't have gone out on the air otherwise) because it will generate a ton of advertising. TDS and TCR are two of Comedy Central's most popular shows. They love an idea like this.
Well guess what? Media companies like that have plenty of lawyers, publicists, and so on who know what needs to be done to make all this happen.
They'll get their permit.
What do Beck, Stewart and Colbert have in common?
They're entertainers, not political scientists.
I don't want actors writing mission critical code for our spacecraft, and by the same token, we the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh, not make us see truth.
If you want to know what's wrong with democracy in America, it's that a huge mass of useful idiots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) are voting wherever their emotional impulses lead them, at the behest of a few privileged media elites.
That's not politics, it's mob rule.
Futurist Traditionalism
Because these shows have backfired so badly. They are some little public access pieces nobody has ever heard of. They don't have millions of nightly views and aren't top rated shows on Comedy Central.
Oh, wait, its the other way around on that.
They are very successful satirists, and this is just more of what they do.
I'd like to think that fans of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the silent majority in America. But when you watch mainstream news it's difficult to tell because their pundits keeping whipping the extreme left and right into a frenzy. This silent majority knows how ridiculous guys like Glenn Beck really are and know that these blowhards are just doing what they do for ratings. At least a guy can hope...
You can thank Reddit for this.
a small vocal minority can ram through its agenda by being the craziest, loudest, most passionate in your face types around
the tragedy of our existence is yes, just as you say, the majority of people are too busy leaving quiet, good lives to be bothered with this nonsense. unfortunately, the lives of this vast majority of quiet and good can be made more difficult by a small committed group who do not represent their interests, but the interests of whatever demagogue whips them into a frenzy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What do you think the definition of a "moderate" is? People who vote for Republicans? Or a crowd that is 50% Democrat voters and 50% Republican voters?
How about people that would vote for either, as long as they supported moderate positions? Yes I do not think that is who will attend Stewarts rally, regardless of stated intent. It will generally be people that vote Democrat because they are not Republican. And in no way, is this kind of voting without thought an act of moderation.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Take this as a critique: Mentioning cable is not a good way to pretend you don't know who these guys are.
Is there no place left that politics has no grasp?
It's true! Politics have taken over the sanctuary that is "Idle!" NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Our only hope of restoring this as a non-political place to discuss the latest youtube videos, is to whine about it!
Both rallies are funded by Comedy Central (Viacom). They are only "competing" if you think organized wrestling is a competition.
The sad thing is, Stewarts rally could have had a decent point to it, but when paired with the "Rally for Fear" how can you take either seriously? The whole thing as it is turns to a vapid joke, the intent simply to ridicule people they wish to brand as extremist even though most are the 70% Stewart spoke of.
I admire Stewart for calling out Truthers and Birthers as equally ignorant, but he wants to paint the whole Tea Party movement with the brush of a few fringe members when it wouldn't make sense to claim the Democrats are all Truthers just because a few of them usually show up at democratic rallies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i'm a communist socialist fascist secret muslim (rolls eyes)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What do Beck, Stewart and Colbert have in common?
They're entertainers, not political scientists.
I don't want actors writing mission critical code for our spacecraft, and by the same token, we the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh, not make us see truth.
Labels labels labels... you hear that, NASA? If your coders are in a theater troop in their spare time, they shouldn't be allowed to write mission-critical code, because actors shouldn't be allowed to do that.
And what you can accomplish in life is limited by the title that someone is willing to bestow you upon hiring, not by who you are and what you can do; your identity and your potential are defined by the title you hold. If your paycheck says "make jokes", then anything you do that isn't a joke should be ignored.
So believes hessian, who is a slashdotter and therefore should not be allowed to have a girlfriend. Because labels define you and everything about you.
You can't take the sky from me...
In 2009 the PEW research study asked individuals where they got their news then 23 factual questions about US politics and wold affairs. Below is the list of news sources, correlated with percentage of correct answers:
From this can we pretty definitively site that the fans of The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are more likely to be knowledgeable about what's going on in the world than Glen Beck;s rally attendees?
I am going to hop in my car and ride right over there and see these three guys. ...... not
Or like as the gp I only in passing know who they are and could give a crap?
All 3 sound like your typical blowhard 'news' reporters. With 2 of them using humor to pass off their views.
Stop being manipulated by the we vs they attitude pervasive in US politics and TV. It is not 'they the people' just 'WE the people'.
Dont like something stop bitching it is dems vs repubs. Or using derogitory names. Crack out the pen and paper and write your congress/senator and tell them how you feel about it. They are your represenative even if you do not vote for them. Write them saying you expect better than partition politics from them.
Good to see that this is getting momentum.
I do have a major issue with politics and main stream media ( from both sides) that seem to be working together for their own goals. The media focuses on the outrageous because it stands out the most and politicians gravitate to that as it becomes part of the national conversation. The cycle continues, the media gets its ad dollars and the politicians get their votes. But in order for that, there is usually a sacrifice which in the end becomes the truth and the public.
Just some points to think about:
- While Glenn Beck and other media pundits on the left and right seem to be leading this major ground swell on view points, its the media that really propels them and not actually the number of people who believe them.
Back in the day, before 500 channel cable, a tv show with few million viewers would be canceled very quickly. But in the age of modern cable tv, that viewership size can keep a show on air for years. In a country of 250 million plus, and with the number of ways one can reach viewers via tv, web etc... its not impossible to find enough people that agree with your points of view - no matter how crazy they may be.
- The media snakes who end up fueling this rage are angels in comparison with our elected politicians. Politicians love to use controversy to boost poll numbers and regularly change their minds after elections. If there is a hot topic, politicians on both sides try to ride the wave of popularity. Because in the end, if it brings them votes, thats all that matters. If you had a pretty cush, high paying job and to keep your job all you had to do was keep your popularity up, would you not try to side with 'apparent' public opinion? The media promotes the public opinion its audience craves and the politicians benefit.
And now, two hosts of shows on a channel called "Comedy Central" are going to try to break this cycle and fuse together the biggest demographic in this country - the group that has some basic common sense.
How ironic is it that comedians have to bring out the sane?
This smacks of arrogance. Now, every host wants to show that he can pull as many protesters as Glen Beck's rally did. Even Ed Schultz's pissant show thinks they can draw 100,000.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I live in the area and I WILL go.
It's just a shame that for the ignorant emotion-driven masses that trully believe in the exagerated alarmist pap fed to them by the media, this exercise in humour is just going to be one enormous "whoosh!".
RABBLE!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
I used to love Stewart and Colbert. Then I realized how absolutely disturbing their shows are. There was a story on Colbert a while back that made me finally begin to realize this - A group of police officers (I think it was about 10) broke into the house of a bedridden 80-something year old woman...and for some reason decided they needed to taze her. Twice. And you know what the reaction to this story was? Riotous laughter. That story isn't funny. It's obscene.
Stewart and Colbert make people think it's ok to just laugh off all our problems - while they continue to get worse. What the hell is the point of having a couple sarcastic rallies? Hell, while they're at it they should send letters to their senators and representatives saying 'I have absolutely nothing to tell you.' Yeah, that'll show 'em! All they're doing is giving more support to Glenn Beck.
Seriously, WTF?
"I don't watch TV and therefore am better than you"
That would be an awesome sign for the Stewart/Colbert rally.
Oh, you can piss right off with that ad hominem shit. Stewart is decent, but Colbert is about as humorous as cancer. It's heavy-handed satire for people who like their comedy force-fed. No subtlety whatsoever.
The DonorsChoose fund drive page that redditors have been giving to in droves to get Colbert's attention.
Please also donate, if you can.
- and am really looking forward to it.
I'll be in the Colbert - 'Keep Fear Alive' side.
My sign will read;
'The New American Tea-Party;
Harnessing the Power of Stupid.
Finally, A Renewable resource all republicans can agree on!'
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
It'll mean they had better bulshitters doing crowd estimates. But, simply put, there's no way in hell Stewart and Colbert will bring out more people than Glenn Beck did. I've read and heard and seen the estimates and all that crap. There were at least 100,000 people there. I think all honest and realistic people would say somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000. I doubt Stewart and Colbert will pull more than 50,000. If only because people in the middle really do have shit to do.
Because there is heavy left lean amongst the boards operators, let alone some who feel threatened by people don't think like them.
Just watch the moderation and see it in action. It is really humorous to see stories like this bring out the viciousness of some who go out of their way to put down those on the right - either by direct attack or inference.
This country was made great because we are open to all ideas. We move left and right and try to maintain a balance.
The animosity has always been there, but trying to attribute it to one side exclusively is very dishonest.
Beck's gathering was impressive for a radio host, but he was capitalizing on something he did not generate, as such it had a great response.
I really doubt either of the two comedians will do similar because they are not going to get people with the same level of emotional investment. Best of luck to them, but mocking rarely does anything but make you look weak. Air America failed because they mocked, they didn't originate. Hopefully these two can do better.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
...you are twelve and what is this?
It starred Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr, what did you expect?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
It should be noted that the rally is the product of an social media campaign initiated by reddit user.
...we the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh, not make us see truth.
I wasn't aware there was a difference.
What makes you think Fox provides "news?" It is the propaganda arm of the Republican party.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
They know their relevance is ending when the 20 somethings that used to watch them while eating cheetos are now turning 30 and are bored with their childish humor.
Got a source for that? My Googling turned up this:
Vs. last summer, ratings for “The Daily Show” were up +10% among Adults 18-49, +22% among Adults 18-34, up +20% among Men 18-34 and up +15% among Men 18-24. Viewership grew +9% to 2.2 million Total Viewers (P2+)
Vs. last summer, ratings for “The Colbert Report” were up +9% among Adults 18-49, +18% among Adults 18-34, up +13% among Men 18-34 and up +12% among Men 18-24. Viewership grew +9% to 1.5 million Total Viewers (P2+)
Unless that's factually incorrect, it would appear that they're relevance is increasing rather than decreasing and these rallies may be an attempt to publicly show their relevance to a country that's gotten the impression that the tea party groups are much more relevant than they actually are.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
I am so sorry to hear about the loss of your sense of humor. Was it a natural progression of loss or did you have to hand it in voluntarily when joining the republican party.
This reflects the quality of Colbert's & Stewart's fans, and those who support these silly counter-rallies.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Exactly, just like MSNBC is for the Dems.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
People actually said they got "news" from Rush Limbaugh?!? I thought most people only listened to that show for the entertainment value, the same reason they read the National Enquirer.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Just who IS "paid to...make us see truth?" Media outlets pay their reporters for bringing in and maintaining the interest of readers/viewers. Sadly our news outlets have become less about reporting the truth of factual current events than sensationalism and preaching. The average viewer doesn't want to be informed, they want to be entertained, thrilled, comforted and provoked. That's what reporters are paid for. I wish news shows were more like documentaries than tabloids (which is what the daily show was originally modeled after). As countless others have observed, it's the news media that is encroaching on Stewart's and Colbert's territory rather than vice versa. In summary, we shouldn't "get our opinions" from anyone. We should form our own opinions based upon actual news (aka facts; not this ubiquitous editorial news bs) from multiple sources.
Guess that "I'm Afraid of Spiders" quote hit too close to home.
homo
I don't want actors writing mission critical code for our spacecraft, and by the same token, we the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh, not make us see truth.
Actually, "truth" is right in many comedian's wheelhouse. Pryor, Carlin, Hicks, Chapelle, etc... I'd venture that you'll find more truth in a comedian's routine than a 24hr cable news show.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. This has become a showmanship competition, Colbert and Stewart are riding Becks coat-tails to sell themselves just like Beck.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Not even close. MSNBC has not directly contributed to the DNC, while Fox has given millions directly to the RNC. No Democratic former politicians work for MSNBC, while several Republican former politicians work for Fox.
There is nothing like Fox News on the left.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's really not.
Even tossing aside the half a day MSNBC is recycling Dateline reruns and the like, on any given day you have a good chance of their commentators criticizing Obama or congressional Democrats for not being left enough.
(Don't somehow misconstrue that as me saying that MSNBC has a centrist viewpoint -- they clearly don't, but it's genuinely not the same thing as Fox.)
Stewart and Colbert might be entertainers, but they are far more pragmatic and truthful in their reporting than the racist ‘entertainers’ like beck, hannity on fox. And the way these republican politicians are blatantly spreading lies, it would do more good to any person watching the daily show or colbert’s.
Commodore 64s can use the internet (and even the web), thanks to ongoing development by programmers...
although the Commodore Amiga 500, 3000, or 4000 are really better suited for the job. (The first web browser, Mosaic, was developed for Amiga.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>"I don't watch TV and therefore am better than you"
Say what? I never said that. In fact I have my TV turned-on 16 hours a day (minus work hours) watching various movies or international news captured by my antenna
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Lets play name the person with a, not honorary mind you, college degree:
Glen Beck
John Stewart
Rush Limbaugh
Further lets Google the videos of those 3 who have gone on shows other than their own and have faced hard questions.
I know it is hard every day living with the cognitive dissonance that you right wingers have but you could just you know...stop doing it.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Let me know prominent liberals that have shows on Fox and maybe then you'll have a point.
Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are both prominent figures on MSNBC and are rarely mocked for their views.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, not at all. MSNBC is left-leaning, but it is not so clearly linked to the Democratic party as FOX is to the GOP. There really is no comparison there at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkertons
blackwater anyone?
i'm not a paranoid, but corporations have a lot of money, that can buy a lot of influence, and that's something reasonable to fear, because it is very genuinely pointed against the rights and desires of the general public. do you know what it took to win a 40 hour workweek in this country? vacations? outlaw indentured servitude? outlaw child labor? safe work conditions? these are not jokes, these were all about corporations who would be very happy we be uneducated machines without rights existing only to make them profit. just look at china, the suicides at foxconn
and there are people who actively argue against government regulation of industry? they call themselves libertarians, they champion the rights of individuals, but the real world effect of their agenda is to merely unleash corporatism
corporatism!=capitalism. i am NOT attacking capitalism. in fact, in all of economic history, socialism and communism are not the greatest enemies of capitalism, monopolies and oligopolies are: corporatism. the greatest enemy of small struggling businesses in this country are not government taxes or socialist healthcare: it is large entrenched businesses who don't want the competition and rig the market to work for them. it is perhaps the greatest trick of corporate propaganda that capitalism and corporatism has been conflated as the same thing in some minds, and socialism demonified as the enemy (because it might mean a corporation somewhere has to spend more on the well-being of their workers), when the truth is socialism is merely a few social safety nets, and corporatism sucks the life out of marketplaces and genuinely free and fair capitalist competition
the freedoms and rights of corporations!=the freedoms and rights of individuals. except in all the speechifying and demonizing going on in the political right in this country about immigrants, the poor, homosexuals, etc., NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THE THREATS TO LIBERTY AND FREEDOM FROM CORPORATIONS
why is that?
i don't hate the right, i think some forces from the right, like religious organizations, have, in the past, spoken out and fought against corporatism, out of concern for the welfare of the people. but so many on the right i think are just duped into not seeing the real enemy of the american people: corporations that will ship your job to china and india in the name of the bottom line, and yet claim the mantle of patriotism
corporations, hands down, are the greatest threat to the well-being of our democracy with their financial influence, and i really wish i saw more voices on the right see this to be the truth of the matter, and stop with the scapegoats and willfully know nothing simpleminded appeals to the government being the enemy, when there is an obvious puppeteer behind the government pulling the strings in their favor
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If we are going to be pedantic, the tea party movement and the general republican party are funded by the same people
Actually they are not. The tea party is very much funded by individuals, as each chapter is separate and distinct and local.
And it would be nice to know some rational Tea Part leaders
Just attend a rally. Most of the people there are quite rational. Yes there are fringe elements at some but there will be anywhere; the primary message is to reduce spending and decrease federal control.
Honestly, if the Tea Party would official expel Palin and Beck, most of my problems with them would evaporate.
A party that "expels" anyone holds no interest for me, as I wish a group of ideologically diverse members that agree on common points. I don't like Palin's social positions at all, but it is irrelevant since I do agree with the message of spending less and reducing the size of the federal government. This is true bi-partisanship, to work with people you disagree with on other issues.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If by "hundreds of thousands" you mean 87,000, sure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You obviously don't watch the shows - Colbert is far more biting with his satire of the right wing than Stewart.
Yes, I know. That is my point. Both rallies are satire.
Just read the posts on Slashdot (and elsewhere) about the rally. Quite a few people appear to be taking Stewarts message to "restore Sanity" to heart and thinking it's quite serious. That's what I am saying, nothing about these rallies is serious. That is the sad thing about them, when a message of "sanity" is in fact something that would be nice to see people take seriously. This is not that.
But as Jon Stewart is so fond of pointing out, he's a comedian... so I guess we cannot expect anything serious from him, no matter how people might wish it were so or how reasonable his message sounds.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can't you people drink the Kool-Aid in the privacy of your own homes? And stop sharing it with us?\
They should have a book burning at this rally. Where they build huge fires to...heat up metal type. Which are then arranged in such a way to communicate ideas, and then pressed to the blank pages that everyone brought with them for DRM free distribution!
True; George Stephanopoulos walked out of the White House and into ABC.
Something having to do with broomsticks and bodily orifices.
I was with you up until this. What the fuck?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Yes, and both Colbert and Stewart don't pretend to be analysts. Glenn Beck continuously reminds people that he (thinks) is a real political analyst. The other two shows air along side crappy stand up actors; the entire premise of this is a kind of a joke.
I look forward to seeing future history books recount how two comedy news anchors took down of the corporate news beast. Hopefully they can finish what Bill Hicks started.
you don't have to like it, but you have to admit it is clearly positioned to deliver higher quality healthcare cheaper than the bullshit we have right now
that's the thing that amazes me: so many people are angry about obamacare, but on every single criticism they have of it, the current healthcare system we have IS OBVIOUSLY WORSE. pricing: are you kidding? paperwork and bureaucracy? and most definitely: government (sic corporate) death panels?
all of the critics of obamacare: its as if they have had a lobotomy and are unable to recognize the COMPLETELY broken reality of our OBVIOUSLY WORSE healthcare system we have right now when formulating an opinion on obamacare
they look at obamacare, and its a house with boarded up windows and a hornets nest above the front door and they scream "hell no!"... when currently, they are living in a house sinking into a swamp
obamacare critics: any of you want to defend our current health care system?
(crickets)
of course obamacare will have problems. it will have LESS problems than our current system. welcome to reality: the choice isn't black and white, don't let the corporate propaganda fool you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Apparently, like most teabaggers, you are woefully unaware of the great, long history of using satire and humor to analyze politics. From the first drawing posted up on a wall portraying King George III as a braying jackass(And long before that...) until the age of viral video and beyond, humanity will never cease to mock those deemed "worthy" of derision.
On the converse, I can say equally disdainful things about other sources that people get their information from, Fox News being a more extreme example. Who died and made you king of who is qualified to give politcal advice and commentary, because that seems to fly in the face of what the Teabaggers and other Americans are saying.
If you dont think that just anyone should be able to speak, then logically you would have to extend that to voting, because ones voice and vote are what this country was founded on. If you dont believe that people are able to make up their mind on who to listen to, how could you ever think they would be capable of making their own decisions?
I think you are angry that people who arent speaking to YOUR TRUTH are being heard. If you want people to be limited in their political speech or activism then America is not for you. You might want to try some eastern bloc country or Iran, over there they will shoot anyone who isnt a certified "truth teller", like you seem to believe is Necessary.
I leave you with one question, what is the difference between a useful idiot and an thoughtful person, because it seems like the only seperating criteria is whether they agree with your viewpoints or not. That makes you a useless idiot in my book who is only able to stoke divisions and inflame tensions, but I'm pretty sure some useless idiots in congress find your kind useful.
A large part of their popularity has nothing to do with the juvenile humor - it's because they're more accurate and honest when reporting on current events than the other news outlets, from the blatantly fictional reports of Fox news, to the subtly slanted reports CNN gives. The Daily Show and Colbert Report lay it out as it is, and most of their humor comes from pointing out the absurdity of the actual happenings.
It's pretty sad when a show that is supposed to be dedicated comedy is considered a more trustworthy news source than CNN.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So you didn't know who they were but knew they were on cable and don't watch domestic TV but according to post (#33637932):
"Now I substitute it with Chicago's Progressive Talk radio streamed over the net, plus MSNBC.com streams of Rachel Maddow"
you watch MSNBC online?
Stewart and Colbert are mentioned in foreign news, and I doubt MSNBC has neglected mentioning them.
Before you mod me down for being harsh, I'd like to point out this is about a couple of comedians mocking the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up to Beck's rally and enjoyed it.
I don't think you're harsh, but I do think you're wrong. It isn't about making fun of those people, it's about more than that. Also, professional crowd talliers think that it wasn't hundreds of thousands. http://stevedoig.com/archives/250
One of the core factors here is the unexamined assumption that lefties are both far more intelligent and moral than anyone who holds conservative opinions
Who said that? I've only heard sentiments like that from conservatives, who contend that lefties say such things.
Unfortunately, for all their supposed intellect and compassion, they are utterly unable to fathom how any decent people could hold an opinion contrary to theirs without assigning 'fear' or 'ignorance' as the cause.
Once again, this is an unfounded statement. "They" are unable to fathom this? All debate that "lefties" don't agree with is from 'fear' or 'ignorance'? You seem to have very broadly encompassing prejudices against "lefties". How does this prejudice form? From stuff that Fox News tells you? From a real life person you know? Because it certainly doesn't come from any news sources I read.
the only weapon they really have to fall back on is mockery... In your mockery, you display the true intellectual level you operate on, and it's not a flattering picture
Once again, a very broad prejudice. Is satire a politically left issue, lefties all use mockery as weapons, which is in fact an ugly intellectual level?
Honestly, from reading stuff like this, it seems like you know a person in your life that is a "lefty". All of this stuff you talk about seems like you're talking about that one person, and then applying your perception of this one person to all people. Or, even worse, this is a picture you've painted in your mind which isn't in fact based on real people at all.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Besides admitting that I am correct, are you also implying that ABC is left wing?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Take the stick out of your ass and get a sense of humor.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Because fox is actually balanced. Go ahead and tell us the Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and Allen Combs are conservatives. You don't find conservatives on the other channels. Just the Arlen Spectre, Olympia Snow crowd.
is it right to drive a car without insurance? what happens if you get an accident and can't afford the repairs?
likewise, if you are a young kid with perfect health, but you break your arm, should hospitals not treat you if you have no insurance?
or should they treat you, send you a bill... and nobody pays?
because that's what currently happens: everyone goes to the emergency room, they get treated and bills are never paid. so hospitals are always on the verge of bankruptcy, and are constantly being bailed out WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS. this has been going on for decades. did the corporate funded propaganda you believe for some reason make you aware of that status quo?
in other words, we ALREADY have universal healthcare, but we are doing it in the most inefficient wasteful way, because a few fools like yourself don't like the idea that simple common sense social safety nets are evil and of the devil or whatever. common sense common good gets certain people's panties in a giant twist. why?! don't you realize the alternatives are far worse?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Unless that's factually incorrect, it would appear that they're relevance is increasing rather than decreasing and these rallies may be an attempt to publicly show their relevance to a country that's gotten the impression that the tea party groups are much more relevant than they actually are.
Tea Party candidates are knocking off Republicans in the primary races.
While their general election prospects look shitty, Tea Partiers winning primaries shows that they're pretty fucking relevant to about half the country.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Because fox is actually balanced.
Where's the "-1: Painfully Out of Touch With Reality" mod when we need it?
Well, one quarter.
In a Republican primary, it's only Republicans voting (so that eliminates the Democratic/Independent half).
And then it only takes half of the Republican voters to win.
(Numbers rounded off to very generic terms.)
In fact the tea party groups are the last dying gasp of the part of the republican party that we'd all like to see go the hell away, so we can return to a group of people who want smaller, more efficient government and more responsibility on individuals to conduct sound financial planning (and who are willing to use the government to ensure intelligent individuals CAN do so). To me the tea party is synonymous with a joint church/police state, who want to tie the government up in a right-wing circus.
Colbert and Stewart may be the best thing that ever happens to republicans.
When your counting range is limited to your fingers and toes, comedic subtlety tends to be a little out of reach. But don't worry, you'll always have Tosh.0.
The rallies are competing? I thought one was before the other. Topically, they may be different, but they're not quite competing.
Where's the "-1, Didn't respond to the poster's argument in his retort" moderation when we need it?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I think Air America failed because their target demographic just doesn't listen to talk radio.
Based my experience listening to the local 50K watt AM station in my area, the demographic of talk radio in general seems to be comprised mostly of older people with lots of free time, well-off small business owners whose fiscal interests align with conservatives, and evangelical stay-at-home moms.
That's not exactly Air America's bread and butter.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I would think that those numbers actually support his argument.
While the 18-34 crowd is up 22% & 18%, the 18-49 demo is only 10% & 9%. That would suggest perhaps a significant decrease in viewership by the 35-49 crowd to bring the average down so far thus supporting the original argument that people lose interest in those two shows when reaching their 30's.
A more granular version of the Neilsen ratings would be necessary to know for sure.
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman even has HIS OWN SHOW on MSNBC, where he blathers away with all the right wing talking points he can fit in..
You hear this meme, occasionally, usually from conservatives who can't say that fox news is "fair and balanced" with a straight face.
No, they won't go there, but the will try to float this turn of an idea that fox news is just the other side of the coin of the alleged "liberalism" of the rest of the media..
Sorry, but it ain't so...
thank you for the red herrings, i'm glad you like yelling at phantom bogeymen that exist in your head and not in my words. would you like actually address my point at some point?
its a simple point:
"I don't support forcing people to buy healthcare"
let me be perfectly clear:
you HAVE to buy health insurance
if you are in perfect health, but you break your arm, it is not possible for an ethical society to turn you away from treatment. therefore, you will be saddled with a large bill if you don't have insurance. a select few will be able to pay for it, but the most can't handle the bill, and simply won't pay. this is not speculation, this is reality: most people live paycheck to paycheck, and a sudden $2,000 bill from the hospital is something they can't afford
do you disagree with any of that?
because WE ALREADY HAVE universal healthcare, it is simply paid for in the most retarded wasteful way possible. simple payer means lower rates (you are insuring everyone, not just the old and sick), and you will have LESS paperwork (not a competing morass of healthcare companies trying to profit off of your sickness) and we will have financial incentives for PREVENTATIVE medicine, not emergency end-of-life medicine at huge expense. so instead of spending $10,000 to cut off peoples fingers for diabetes, we'll simply prevent people from getting diabetes
this is called COMMON SENSE. not anti-american socialist fascism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I thought Stewart did a fantastic job of introducing the rally and that his video segment lambasting 'insanity' was perfect in that it went after nuts on both sides. Although I'm a conservative, I really do enjoy Stewart because he tends to get to the raw truth of most matters pretty quickly, no matter what his politics or his viewers'.
Although I've never gone to a political rally, my concern here is that both of these rallies will end up drawing Stewart's primary demographic, who will view it as a counter-Beck and counter-Palin rally, even though that's not at all how Stewart described them, and so the conversation will end up just applying the label of 'insane' or 'irrational' to anyone they don't like -- just as some threads here are saying about the Tea Party. I don't think most regular left-wing folk (in the '80 percenters' category Stewart talked about) are irrational or insane in the slightest, but these days, if you don't support government-run health care and you want smaller government or low taxes, I find myself being treated like the insane person when talking to liberals, even though I'm not even a Republican, and socially quite liberal (anti-religion, pro gay marriage, pro choice). I don't turn that around, either -- I hardly think it's irrational or insane to want a bigger government role in your day to day life or in something as broken as health insurance is in this country. I don't agree with the common liberal solutions to these problems, But I'm Pretty Sure They're Not Hitler.
So how is this rally going to help restore sanity to political conversation? That's a serious question. It's great publicity for Stewart and Colbert (and I'm happy to give it to them) ... but will it result in anything more than patting ourselves on the back?
Not even close. MSNBC has not directly contributed to the DNC, while Fox has given millions directly to the RNC. No Democratic former politicians work for MSNBC, while several Republican former politicians work for Fox.
Rupert (Fox) donates to both parties as does GE (CNBC). How can you be this fucking stupid? Neither CNBC nor Fox News are making direct contributions. Their parent companies and associated owners, do make those. What's the diffence? None but for the fact that you are too fucking stupid to know about one of them.
Eh, 70% of what they do is absolutely stupid shit that isn't funny at all that they put in only because they have to do so many shows a week. The remaining 30% is hilarious and makes wading through the 70% well worth the effort. However, not putting up with the 70% isn't particularly strange.
Fox news is "balanced" the way a teeter-totter with only one child is "balanced." Look, Fox "news" only makes sense if your reality-distortion field has an extra battery pack or two. Try pulling your head out of your ass and reading the news from Canada, Great Britain, or hell, anything outside of the USA. They've got this new internet-thingy now. Give it a whirl, why doncha?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
No.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What makes you think Fox provides "news?" It is the propaganda arm of the Republican party.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
Fox news was created for the sole purpose of dragging the country to the right, because the republican party was too far to the left for good ol' Uncle Rupert.
The repubs are an arm of FOX, not vice versa.
Dave
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Do you want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House—and I'll be very transparent about that? Plus she's the daughter of Carter's National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police.[5] Subsequently, he served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, he mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania's 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary.[6] Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration, and later worked for six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration.
albeit deceased: Prior to becoming host of Meet the Press, Russert worked as a special counsel, and later as chief of staff, to U.S. Senator Daniel Moynihan, a Democrat from New York. In 1983, he became the counsel to New York Governor Mario Cuomo, also a Democrat.
Before coming to the world of political reporting and analysis, Todd earned practical political experience on initiative campaigns in Florida and various national campaigns based in Washington, D.C.[3] While in college, Todd worked for the 1992 presidential campaign of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and later started part time at The Hotline.
NBC is owned be General Electric, which is chaired by Jeffrey Immelt, whom sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. GE stands to make bucket loads of money off Obama's various programs, including health care reform, green energy initiatives, ACTA (through NBC Universal), etc.
And that's to say nothing of Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow which are self-admitted partisans but they do commentary not hard news, so I'll give them a pass just like O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck, none of which claim to do hard news either.
So, uh, yeah, MSNBC is very much a Fox News on the left. You may have some confirmation bias issues and whatnot that keep you from seeing it, but that doesn't mean MSNBC doesn't have staunch Democrats on staff... and those are just the hosts, whereas you seem to be stuck on Fox News's regular contributors... I'll bet you that I can find just as many liberal partisans with government ties on MSNBC's payroll too.
He didn't mean it in an anti-gay/sexual way. A common saying, "take the stick out of your ass," meaning "lighten up" and realize that humor is inherently meant to be fun and not taken offensively, even when its your party being made fun of. They both slam both parties, just in witty/satirical ways, which may go over the heads of /.'ers who really should 'take the stick out of their ass.'
Or go to the march to restore sanity..
I love how George is the only comeback any Rethuglican can come up with whenever special interests are brought up. Onewealthy man directly funding and supporting the Democrats is their only retort.
doing willful ignorance very well./quote
Willful ignorance is what conservatives do best!
Regress, regress, regress! Knowledge must die!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Uh, well, there are a whole lot of people who don't opine that Beck is doing it just for the lulz. On the other hand, Stewart and Colbert use irony, satire, etc. to illuminate the absurdity of the absurd figures, decisions, and "problems" we have, regardless of their place on the political spectrum.
Parent is full of win.
All I can say is that apparently you do not watch MSNBC. I have two televisions, one for MSNBC, one for Fox, and anyone with the ability to rationally observe/draw conclusions can tell you that while they are both biased, one is biased to a much, MUCH, higher degree. You can tell that many of the MSNBC personalities make a conscious effort to remain logically unbiased, whereas the Fox personalities seem to make a conscious effort to remain obviously biased.
..or he could have just said that that mr spider has a big old stick up his ass. did I really need to translate that or did I miss a joke.
Half the jokes amount to little more than posting clips of extremist nutjobs and then pausing. When posting politicians' actual comments is "heavy handed force-fed satire", you know something is wrong with the politics. Or at least the news media enabling that kind of extremist nonsense.
How many people actually vote, let alone in primaries?
It's pretty sad when a show that is supposed to be dedicated comedy is considered a more trustworthy news source than CNN.
What makes it more sad, is that they are actually right to consider it more trustworthy. It's not just people believing it and wanting it to be true. They actually are more trustworthy. What does that say about the rest of our sources of "news"?
Many of their primary wins were as large as 30K voters!
In other words, not many.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Wrong. Fox News donated over 1M directly tot he Republican Governor's Association.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
So GE splitting its donations sixty/forty is the same thing as Fox News splitting things 100/0?
No.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
We the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh, not make us see truth.
You have no idea how lucky you are to have people that have a critical look at the garbage that some media try to pass off as news. My country is currently at a political impasse, with several factions constantly pointing the blame towards other factions. The news on TV has hardly been objective lately and the newspapers have been doing terribly good jobs of demonizing those they don't like. I would love to have a comedian point out how ridiculous the situation is becoming.
Hell, if it would stop people from being swayed by this new wave of extremism and have a critical look at our politics and how insignificant and blown out of proportion some things are I would welcome this comedian with open arms. The useful idiots you speak of now are voting for the people using bogus arguments and pointing the blame on issues that don't matter but sound really convincing to the useful idiot. The media looks at the political impasse and reinforces the ideas spread by those causing the impasse in the first place.
If all it takes is a few guys poking fun at politics and media so that people have a good look at what's happening: send in the fools.
How much has Rupert given to Democrats? Zip, zero, zilch, nada, nothing. But thanks for the WHARGRBL, your anger amuses me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, he does have his own show, because MSNBC's manager is far right. And Scarborough gets to dictate who can and who can not come on MSNBC. Yes, the lone right winger on MSNBC has veto powers over Rachel Maddow and Kith Olberman's guest choices.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I get all my news from daniel tosh.
Mika is Joe's left wing punching bag. She's a nothing. So she bragged about working with the white house. She is a puppet of Right Wing host Joe Scarborough. Whatever she does, she does with his approval. Bad example, especially considering that Joe, as the lone right winger, hired by his friend and right winger, the manager of MSNBC, has VETO POWER over ALL guests that come on MSNBC. Even on Rachel and Kieth's shows.
Tim Russert, as you admit, is dead, and has not been replaced with a similar liberal. Not that he was any kind of ultra lefty, he was pretty center of the road by any standards.
Chuck Todd is on NBC, not MSNBC. You could try to use him as an example of how NBC is left wing, but not MSNBC. Bad example.
GE is a defense contractor and would stand to make at least as much with the Republicans in power. GE donates sixty/forty. They give sixty to the front runner and forty to the challenger, regardless of party affiliation.
You had to stretch pretty far to find these weak-sauce examples. Looks like you've been made the fool here.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Fox hires weak, ineffectual and dumb faux liberals to act as punching bags for their conservative hosts. MSNBC, on the other hand, hires people like Joe Scarborough, and then lets him veto who can come on Kieth and Rachel's shows.
You will find conservatives on all other networks, just not ultra right fascist wing nuts like you will find at Fox. Just because they are left of you does not make them left wing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
When someone says the sky is always bright fuchsia, do you make a scientific argument that they are incorrect, or do you call them a moron and move on?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I don't think so, if anything MSNBC is part of the huge chunk of american media that is controlled by a small group of international corporations and promotes the interests of their advertisers and ownership.
The extremism and hysteria that fox broadcasts its audience may make it seem like the rest of the corporate media is somehow "left wing" but he who plays the piper calls the tune and that's the ownership and the advertisers regardless of which channel you watch.
Thus you see endless examples of viagra commercials wrapped around things like "death panel" debates on every channel but no serious discussions about things like the huge premium americans pay for drugs compared to other wealthy western countries. Controlling and limiting debate doesn't require a big conspiracy, it merely requires that those with editorial control have a shared set of true interests.
follow the money, ignore the noise.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
yeah I think both news agencies lean to a single side. What bothers me greatly is the quality of media in general. I know both sides do it but I've blatantly seen Fox news edit a quote a politician has said during a speech to the point that they cut part of the sentence out to make an insane argument. The worst was when Fox news was touting that the funding for the ground zero mosque(which isn't a mosque) was coming from a terrorist. The terrorist by descriptions(Rudolph Giuliani was described as not accepting funding from him because of his ties to terrorism) was one of the owners of Fox news(largest outside of the Murdoch family which still isn't controlling share). They weren't quick to disclose his name on air. It's the lack of ethical standards that has been a slippery slope over the years long before Fox showed up. The news before fox typically had a left line political stance. This didn't seem as intentional as the current news media. CBC(canadian broadcast company) has a good documentry on this as well(being Canada it might seem to have a more liberal point of view but it does try very hard to be unbiased in my opinion) http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html It's a great documentary on the left and right leanings of popular media. it's getting a little dated from when I first watched it but it still drives a lot of the points across. Most of the people in the documentary are still around.
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that this is new? There's a fine tradition of it, in fact. Ever watch Weekend Update on SNL? It's been around since 1975. Ever listened to Bill Mahar? George Carlin? Going back a while, how about Roger Waters? John Lennon? Bob Dylan? Keep going back, and you'll find Bob Hope and Bette Davis pitching war bonds and AWESOME political cartoonists developing a new art form with sometimes scathing brilliance to convey news and opinion to the masses. Go back before the days of television and mass entertainment. Ever heard of Mark Twain? Jonathan Swift?
Keep going back even further, and you'll find the likes of Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, and even further, ancient Greek playwrights working to disseminate political information and present what is going on in the world in interesting, entertaining ways.
Entertainers have been informing us formally or informally, and trying to move people to act politically since, well, forever. If you think it's scary today, man, I feel sorry for what you'll think it's like in years ahead as new forms of news and entertainment, and even the literal physical media on which it is delivered, changes. It sounds to me like you're just experiencing a generation gap. Don't worry, it will all be okay, and kids these days won't ruin the world any more than you did.
I knew there had to be somebody.
So believes hessian, who is a slashdotter and therefore should not be allowed to have a girlfriend.
Damn rebellious youth! Back in my day we nerds had only our right and left hands and we were happy about it! Now you young kids with your techno and your Ruby on Rails run around talking about actually fraternizing with the other gender like it's some kind of entitlement. It's sickening I tell you! Now get off my damn lonely lawn!
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
> Both rallies are funded by Comedy Central (Viacom). They are only "competing" if you think organized wrestling is a competition.
In other words, they're too perfect a mirror of our politics?
Because they claim to be "Fair and Balanced"
Showing us what those other media outlets wont
If Fox News just came out and admitted they were a Right Wing Tea Party/Republican shill, I'd have no problems with them at all.
i have 50 old and sick people. over the course of a year, 20 of them need to spend $1,000 on heathcare. now calculate what i should charge for premiums
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW
compared to:
i have 250 people of all ages and sicknesses. over the course of the year, 50 of them need to spend $1,000 on healthcare. now you calculate what i should charge for premiums
THAT'S UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE
get it? insurance is about charging a spread across all of the insured to cover the costs for those who file claims. so if you only have the old and sick, you are charging high premiums. but if you have a mix of sick and healthy, your premiums, through simple math, goes down
if health insurance is voluntary, only those who need it get it: the old and sick, with high premiums. and then the young and healthy and poor go to the emergency room with broken arms and stiff the bills, so we have universal healthcare anyways, excpet paid in the most retarded way. with mandatory universal healthcare, the premiums are lower for anyone, and the young and poor aren't being taught you should stiff bills you can't afford
what you posted above is simply complete nonsense without the slightest idea of how insurance works. you've been misinformed from some sort of propaganda i think
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And what do they not have in common?
Beck claims to be a political expert whose explicit goal is to influence the country's politics, while Stewart and Colbert claim to be comedians whose explicit goal is to make people laugh.
Saying "they're all entertainers" is like saying "Martin Luther King and Adolf Hitler were both effective orators". It's true, but it glosses over some fairly obvious differences.
because your strategic thinking sucks
the government is supposed to represent the people. it doesn't: its warped by corporate influence to stack the deck in their favor. we both agree on that
then we radically part ways
you say: lets trash the government. ok, then what happens? now the corporations gleefully completely abuse you in every way you listed above, plus 50 more unseemly and degenerate ways you haven't even imagined yet that you can be abused, because YOU DESTROYED THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN STANDS BETWEEN YOU AND COMPLETE DOMINANCE BY CORPORATIONS: the government
i say: you should want to FIX the government, and have it work for you, which it what it is supposed to do and was made to do! not trash it and remove the only thing that can protect you from unhindered corporate abuse
i really don't understand people like you: you openly admit to the corporations and their financial influence being the ultimate source of the problem, but you still don't understand that the government, which is supposed to be of the people, is being corrupted to work against your interests rather than for your interests. so you should remove the corruption, right? no, you go "ok, let's finish the job and destroy the government completely so i can be completely butt raped by corporations in a world where they don't even have to pretend and work secretly by destroying my government"
wtf?!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
On a more serious medium?
Perhaps you aren't familiar with Will Rogers.
Depends on whether you want to admit in the most crass and graceless way possible that you've lost the argument. If you do, choose the latter.
Well, we were both somewhat inaccurate. It was NewsCorp (who owns Fox) which is STILL the same as GE (who owns CNBC). Again, I may have err'd in saying Rupert (Murdoch) rather than NewsCorp. It is the parent corporations of Fox and CNBC that are giving to both parties. Any statement that omits these facts is likely to be from the ignorant or the immoral. Yes, lying is immoral.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/17/news-corp-fox-parent-company-donates-1m-to-republican-governors-association/
Unlike Spun, I have not attempted to deceive.
Ouch. It breaks my brain to think about how ill-informed your opinion is. Whomever moderated your ignorant comment "insightful" should be metamoderated as a biased or ignorant idiot.
I know it's the Internet, but it'd be a favor to us all if you understood what you were talking about before talking about it. You should at least take the time to watch the "Rally for Restore Sanity" announce video so that you have a vague clue as to the subject at hand and not the one that you've apparently made up.
I don't have Cable and have noo idea who Stephen Colbert is.
That is a flat out lie.
Why do you insist on being such a troll, Troll64?
Yes, and next time I need a doctor, I'll be sure to see an amateur, as well.
Would you let Colbert, Stewart and/or Beck operate on you? Diagnose your medical problems? Write your compiler?
Politics is a specialized field just like the ones mentioned above.
I'm sorry if you can't be bothered to crack a book, or even do a little background research, but there's a reason we esteem some thinkers over others.
It's not that hard to be a funnyman.
To be a profound political thinker or leader? Harder.
So if you can't turn off the TV long enough to find some reputable sources, I'm very sorry for you, but I have no need to follow you in your error.
If your coders are in a theater troop in their spare time, they shouldn't be allowed to write mission-critical code, because actors shouldn't be allowed to do that.
You wouldn't do so well in a political science class making logical fallacies like that. Hobbies are clearly different than vocations, don't you think?
If your paycheck says "make jokes", then anything you do that isn't a joke should be ignored.
If your paycheck says "entertainer," I'm going to go to the professionals instead for political information.
Would you take political opinions from Britney Spears?
Futurist Traditionalism
Troll64 knows exactly who Colbert is, Troll64 was just being their usual trollish self.
So you are saying that if I do not debate the wingnut claiming the sky is fuchsia, then I have lost, and others will believe him when he says the sky is fuchsia?
But all that is beside the point, as I and other have pointed out that Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC, and there are a ton of right wing commentators on many networks and other media. The Fox left wingers, on the other hand, are widely recognized to be the actual incarnation of a straw man, hired as sidekicks for their right wing hosts to beat up on.
As usual, sloppy argumentation and fantastical assumptions prove the downfall of an overconfident right winger, who has made himself look the idiot in the process. Thanks for that, I always appreciate a good laugh.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The first web browser, Mosaic, was developed for Amiga
The first web browser, WorldWideWeb, was developed for NeXTSTEP. The second web browser ran in a terminal and was developed for UNIX.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Left-wing" isn't exactly a word I'd use to describe the Clinton White House, although "Democratic" is a fair description of it. While I'd have to watch television news to have any meaningful idea about how much it leans one way or the other on a daily basis, they did hire a politico straight out of the White House and onto the news analysis desk, which generated quite a bit of buzz at the time. (Given your UID, you must remember it.)
I think you've confused Stephanopoulos and Soros there, my snorting friend. Actually, if you want to talk about wealthy people who support the Democrats, how about John Kerry, Warren Buffett, or Al Gore (who, unlike the others, is a really despicable human being)? Or a lot of the guys on Wall Street?
Oh, that's right. "Rethuglican". You can't bear the thought that someone who disagrees with you is anything other than a puppy-killing sociopath. Try insufflating 10 mg of something else, it'll take the edge off.
Oh, I think I've read about you: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/
"About a week after I met him, we were talking, and I made some kind of Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert reference," Gerela said. "He asked me what I was talking about, and when I told him it was from a TV show, he just went off, saying how the last show he watched was some episode of Cheers,..."
I don't have cable or satellite either, but I know perfectly well who these two men are. It has nothing to do with having cable, I suspect is has everything to do with "look at me, I'm above popular culture".
Okay, so your statement was just a non sequiter requiring no rebuttal because it was tangential to my argument. Sorry I misinterpreted that. I thought you were offering up a counter point.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Am I the only one on the planet that remembers the daily show before it got all politicized and contentious? I yearn for the good old days when fart jokes, weirdos, and plants in people's faces ruled the day. Today's daily show is like watching CNN with some jokes thrown in. It's just not light and fun like it used to be. I don't watch it too often anymore.
What do Beck, Stewart and Colbert have in common?
They're entertainers, not political scientists.
I don't want actors writing mission critical code for our spacecraft, and by the same token, we the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh, not make us see truth.
Labels labels labels... you hear that, NASA? If your coders are in a theater troop in their spare time, they shouldn't be allowed to write mission-critical code, because actors shouldn't be allowed to do that.
And what you can accomplish in life is limited by the title that someone is willing to bestow you upon hiring, not by who you are and what you can do; your identity and your potential are defined by the title you hold. If your paycheck says "make jokes", then anything you do that isn't a joke should be ignored.
So believes hessian, who is a slashdotter and therefore should not be allowed to have a girlfriend. Because labels define you and everything about you.
Indeed, but he does have a point about the relationship between the mass media and a democracy, paradoxically or ironically, I would recommend the BBC series "A Century Of Self" as a bit of an eye opener if you haven't thought to much about it. If I remember correctly, John has also pointed this relationship out, and it is often the butt of his jokes.
You could not be more full of shit: "News Corp. also gave $45,000 each to GOP and Democratic campaign committees on Capitol Hill. ". The Murdoch Family has a controlling interest and Rupert is supposedly worth $6 billion and is now a US citizen. Even I have have given to democrats and even worked on one of their campaigns.
Your mistake here is that you look at a number and say, that's a low number. The facts are that these numbers are larger than any numbers in Republican primaries since the 1930's and, more importantly, larger than the turnouts for Democrat primary turnouts this year.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
so you agree with the philosophy of universal healthcare, you just have a problem with the implementation?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What do Beck, Stewart and Colbert have in common? They're entertainers, not political scientists.
Well sure. The scary difference is, Stewart and Colbert's fans know they're entertainers. Beck's fans treat him like some kind of freaking messiah. While he scribbles conspiracy theories on blackboards which his fans take at face value, rather than the crapulent arse-sourced chicanery that they are.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
If you remark on his perceived intelligence without making an attempt to prove him unintelligent by showing his claim to be wrong, then yes, you have lost. He will certainly fail to prove his claim, but your response to him is rightly disregarded as worthless by any logical person. In short, you've lost an argument with someone who thinks the sky is fuschia, thereby proving yourself a bigger idiot than you claimed he was.
No, but you've still lost the argument. You don't seem to realize the difference between winning an argument and being right.
I agree with that, but it's beside my point, which is that to respond to an argument without addressing its point is to unconditionally surrender in the most childish manner possible. Even if you're right.
I'm not a right-winger, nor did anything I say indicate that I am. You just decided I "must" be because I contradicted you.
Your decision to be titchy made me look it up. Turns out that the money was given not to the RNC, but to the RGA - they're different organizations. Still, that sort of thing happens - you mean one thing, you say another, when they're all in the same business.
If Fox didn't serve a market, it wouldn't be successful. If a large number of people feel like their voice isn't being heard, and you provide them with that outlet, you will make a lot of money. Rush Limbaugh realized this and has made himself a multimillionaire out of getting on radio and rambling for a few hours a day. Fox did the same. Why get upset about it? If the biggest problem facing America today is that there is one cable network that has the guts to be come down on one side of the political divide, then I think we're safe. After all, it's not as though England is riven with Guardian vs Telegraph death feuds.
As for the money, if you check out this article you'll notice that the parent companies of other networks, while not quite as one-sided (and before the $1M to RGA, News Corp wasn't so one-sided), have generally been well to the advantage of Democrats.
Opensecrets doesn't do a D-R split for individual vs PAC contributions from a given company, but if you'll take a look at this chart from 2008 and look at the GE subsidiary donations (all from individuals), you'll notice something: in the media subdivisions, nearly all the money goes to Democrats. Do you suggest that these people are somehow so noble that they check every bit of political prejudice at the door when they enter unto the temple of Journalism?
I've got some bad news for you, Rush, Beck and Coulter. They aren't political scientists either, they are actors. Entertainers who are attempting to provoke the right emotional response out of you. They may not be comedians but that does not make them any less of an actor. The biggest difference is that Stewart/Colbert are pushing their agenda (comedy, which writes the pay check) and Rush/Coulter are pushing someone else's agenda (who writes the pay check)
You must live in a pretty sad world to believe that these ideas are mutually exclusive. Parody has been used for millennia to draw attention to uncomfortable facts and other things people tend to gloss over, especially political facts.
As a non-american, I can see how Stewart/Colbert can be taken more seriously then Fox or any other news channel. They report far more accurately then Fox (I've never seen MSNBC, probably because those socialist, lefty enviro-nuts turn off the TV when they leave the room). If I want to know what's actually happening in US politics, the best source I've found is the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). At the very least the Beeb separates factual news from option pieces, where as American channels tend to disguise opinion pieces as factual news.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
My I kindly point out, Sir, that you are arriving at exactly the point some exiled journalist in London came to some 150 years ago?
His basic insight was that power within society stems from posessions and riches, and especially those riches that allow you to produce more riches, which, in a capitalist society, are companies. And that those fortunes have a significant effect on how society is shaped, run, and governed, i.e. they influence which laws are made, how they are made, and by whom. His proposed solution, however, prooved to be remarkably unworkable due to a couple of wrong assumptions regarding the nature of humans.
I do understand, though, that liberal slashdot posters are usually in opopsition to intellectual property and would not always give credit where credit is due.
Invita Invidia
http://www.gatheryourarmies.com/
the Democrats need not pay any attention to the left, since the left will either vote Democratic or not vote at all.
Note that if the left starts voting for a non-Democrats party and in doing so ceases voting for the Democrats, that might very well cause the Republicans to win (e.g. if the votes go from 51-49 to 3-48-49).
For that reason, the Democrats can't much afford to let the left wing go do its own thing. But also, the left can't afford to go do its own thing (I assume they don't want the Republicans to win).
I'm not sure how the power game plays out, but I suspect that the Democrats, by virtue of being larger and by virtue of being able to recruit centrist votes to compensate for leftward loss, will come out on top.
So forming a one-party union between the Democrats and the Greens will, I think, by and large give you the Democrats (with a few minor concessions to the Green to keep them in line).
You can't get more than six liberals together without having to call SWAT to restore order. Beyond the violent nature of the "tolerant ones" I can't imagine the trash and filth they'll leave behind.
Work out the percentages, idiot. They gave nothing to the Democratic governors association, 1 million to the Republicans, and then, whooo! $45,000 to both national parties. I think the overflowing feces receptacle is you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I don't need to prove his claim wrong. Anyone who can look at the sky already knows he is wrong, so wrong that he must in fact have something very wrong with his mind.
You don''t seem to understand what an argument is. Saying the sky is fuchsia is not an argument. Arguments start from propositions and lead to conclusions based on logical operations. One solitary statement is not an argument.
If you need it spelled out, my counterargument, put in formal terms for those too clueless to read between the lines,
Person says the sky is fuchsia.
All other persons agree the sky is not fuchsia.
Anyone who makes statements that are a direct contradiction of fact is crazy
Therefore (an argument needs this to be an actual argument)
The person who thinks the sky is fuchsia is crazy
I was never arguing that the sky is blue. You can't argue that. It is a proposition, and it is either apparent or it isn't.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Big business almost always gives about 60 percent to the expected winner and 40 percent to the expected loser, to hedge their bets. They don't really care who wins, they just want whoever wins to owe them.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hobbies are clearly different than vocations, don't you think?
I was going through my messages and I know I already blew off your reply with an insult, but on second glance that word caught my eye...
"The idea of vocation is central to the Christian belief that God has created each person with gifts and talents oriented toward specific purposes and a way of life."
AH! There's your problem, you're trying to make the world fit a religious belief.
Would you let an electrician be a newspaper editor? Or political commentator? Or statesman? What if I'm talking about Ben Franklin?
Was Leonardo da Vinci's vocation painting? Or sculpting? Or engineering? Or botany? Or anatomy?
Was Isaac Asimov a mere science fiction writer, or a bible historian? Or maybe he was a scholar?
Are you starting to get a glimpse of what I'm hinting at? Do you understand that someone's job title doesn't invalidate anything else they might be capable of? Maybe the nasa engineer only does it for the money, but his true vocation is the theater and he's too responsible a father to risk that lifestyle in this economy.
A comedian can be an ignorant twit, or an insightful observer of human nature, and being a comedian does not grant any more or any less value to their words.
You can't take the sky from me...
we the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh
paradoxically or ironically, I would recommend the BBC series "A Century Of Self" as a bit of an eye opener
Seen it, but re-read the bit of the GP's post I carefully quoted. Do you see how he's saying that voters should get their opinions from professional opinion-givers instead of laugh-givers? Doesn't that submission to authority make you wanna just... puke? The mere concept of people who have the authority to tell you what your opinions should be... ugh. I taste bile.
You can't take the sky from me...
If you think about it, Beck would be hilarious as a parody of the extreme right ; the problem is that he *tries* to be taken seriously (or at least many of his viewers actually believe it). In a way, Colbert is a parody of Beck
"The large corporations would not have the power they have without a Federal government..."
you see the warping of the laws to serve corporations as something the government is guilty of, not corporations
"It is not corruption to pay someone to talk to a Congressman on your behalf"
(smacks forehead)
what the fuck is wrong with you? seriously: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU
you readily acknowledge the mechanism by which corporations warp government on their behalf, and you STILL think the root of the problem is the government
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It would be more fair to say Mosaic was "also ported" to the Amiga- your post read to me as "Mosaic was first developed for the Amiga".
http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.