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.
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
but JS and SC are doing the EXACT same thing they're bitching about Glen Beck doing...
Comedy often is about doing the exact same thing - just in a context or with a small twist that reveals how ridiculous it is.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
No, they're not. John Stewart and Steven Colbert are satirizing Glen Beck. Glen Beck is serious. That's the difference. The point of this type of satire is to draw attention to the absurdity of the thing/person/event being made fun of by imitating its form and taking the ridiculous characteristics ad absurdam.
I disagree with you but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
Jon.
Well, I think the point is also to get a bunch of people out to try and send a message to the politicians and the mainstream media to, as Jon put it, tone it down a notch for America.
I don't think there will be a lot of people there myself: "But why don't we hear from the 70-80 percenters? Well, most likely, because you have shit to do." --Jon Stewart
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
A CYA comment by Stewart.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Try not to take the "I'm afraid of Spiders" thing too seriously".
Don't you mean Jonathan Leibowitz?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart
The guy hates his own name and his proud heritage.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
It's not mandated. You're free to bring your own signs, but they'll have some if you're not funny. And thank God for that, because most people are not funny. Sadly, people that aren't funny and people that think they're not funny have a very small overlap on the Venn diagram, so we'll still be forced to read some very unfunny things.
No they're bitching that Glen Beck is doing it under the guise that his "truthful" *cough* news commentary is somehow helping America when really he's pulling all the tricks to raise his viewership. With Stewart and Colbert, they are comedians. Their shows are satire. This has never been muddled by them. What is sad is that their satire is often more informative than real news, but their intent has always been comedy.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apparently you didn't see the signs in question.
With a sign like that you are just Stalin the inevitable...
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
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
Stewart is just as serious at GB, he just dresses it up as Satire. Colbert is just goofy, and much more enjoyable to watch. That's the difference.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Stewart never said that in context to the rally. He said a few days before about why there is a lack of opinion from the majority of Americans and how it is only a small percentage on both sides that are directing the tone of any debates. His entire quote was:
But why don't we hear from the 70-80 percenters? Well, most likely, because you have shit to do. And quite frankly, even if you didn't have shit to do, you may lack the theatrical flair necessary for today's 24 hour a day, 7 day a week news media.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'll summarize the comments on this article:
* I'm right
* No your not
* YOU'RE!
You mean just like a union rally where the sloganeering is handled not by the people attending but the people rallying them up....
Yes. Also the way Tea Party rallies provide signs to attendees, and the way political party conferences provide signs .... pretty much the way all political rallies work in the US nowadays. What did you expect? if you're going to mock something this way, you'd better provide a reasonable facsimile.
.sig withheld by request
You do know that Stewart and Colbert work together, right?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The guy hates his own name and his proud heritage.
If he hated his heritage, I doubt he'd refer to jews as 'my people' quite so often. It seems more likely that he has a realistic estimation of the great American public's ability to pronounce and spell Leibowitz. That, or he's worried about being confused with the guy with the canticle...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I don't know if you've seen some of the Tea Party protest signs but they were funny but in a sad sort of way. Half of them hinted their owners didn't use a dictionary.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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
Because he changed his name, you say he hates his proud heritage?
That's an awful lot to assume there. He mentions he's Jewish all the time, never seems to be ashamed of it. I think you are projecting a lot onto him. I personally think him picking a different name might have more to do with his father dumping his mother for a secretary when he was young - but that's just a theory, and I wouldn't go saying "Jon Stewart hates his father" either.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
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.
Also, I'm fairly certain that although they are "competing rallies" they are actually a single rally with two headliners.
This sig is in another castle.
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
And if this rally is bigger than Beck's fest, what will that mean?
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
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
"I don't think there will be a lot of people there myself:"
My anecdotal evidence shows that a lot will, attend, really. I'm going and a lot of people that I know will be going, too. It'll just be 2-3 hours on a Saturday afternoon, and whatever happens, I'm sure it'll be funny as hell.
I don't respond to AC's.
You do know they planned the rallies together, right? The rallies are in the exact same place, at the same time--both will be sharing the stage... As for people getting their news from the Daily Show, Do you think those folks don't know they are turning the channel to Comedy Central? Sure they might not watch Fox, MSNBC, or whatever--but honestly, why even bother? You can get the news that interests you any time using tubes on the interwebs Heck, I hear there are even some places where people can comment back and forth over geeky news! :)
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?
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?
If so, you've missed the point. What he seems to be thinking "moderate" is the people who may disagree with some politicians, but wouldn't call them Hitler.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).
That's not a problem with him - that's a problem with the American news media.
And then the Media wonders why they're losing to the Internet. Getting news from reliable sources on the Internet is like reading the news a day, a week or sometimes even years early. The trick is, reliable sources. But that's the trick with the mass media as well - and it is slippery to find a site that dispenses mostly facts, as opposed to mostly confirmation bias.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
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.
You do realize that Colbert more fully skewers the right than Stewart does, right? Stewart is fairly non partisan. Colbert, on the other hand builds his whole shtick on mocking the right. Colbert is very serious, but he is so good at what he does that idiots on the right think he is on their side! Amazing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
"Glen Beck is serious."
I wouldn't take Beck so seriously. He's a carnival huckster who's tapped into a segment of the population who don't exactly care to tow the liberal line. So what? Beck was an alcoholic morning dj for a very lone time. He then discovered "God" and success and went the Limbaugh route. If you watch him for any length of time on his show he makes incredible, "sky is falling" assertions about crazy things he reads in the news, interviews conspiracy theory cranks, and says "Now watch this..." (referring to conspiracies and strange events around the world), and the very next night is on to some other conspiracy. And it all ends up being a big nothing. Watch him, sooner or later he'll retire, and that will be it. Then you've have some new guy (or gal) come in that you'll feel you have to be careful about. Its all a big media circus nothing designed to keep you worked up. Your best defense against these types is to simply ignore them.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Why didn't he do this when there was a Million man march, or any of the other "rallies" that have taken place by well known left leaning organizations?
Well for starters, the Million Man March was in 1995. The Daily Show didn't exist until 1996 and Jon Stewart didn't host it until 1998. So unless he has some sort of time machine, it was nigh impossible to do it at the time. As for other rallies, he's made fun of both "truther" and "tea party" rallies. Why hasn't he done an anti-rally rally? I suppose it has more to do that Glen Beck did one more than anything else.
Stewarts just pissed because the Tea Party (and conservative libertarians) have taking the playbook from Leftwingers .THAT is why he's having the rally, it isn't about comedy at all for him. His rally is seriousness dressed up as comedy, just like his TV show. This rally only shows how petty he really is.
From what I can tell he's making fun of the hypocrisy. When the liberals where having these rallies opposed to the Bush administration and the war, they were called "unpatriotic" and "un-American". Liberals were hurting America by opposing the President it was argued simply by exercising their right to free speech and protest. Now that the conservative party is no longer in power, these rallies are "expressing freedom" and "restoring honor". Problem is that they are doing the exact same things. And Stewart is making fun of that.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Actually Jon Stewart and his show are absolutely hilarious. Everyone knows it's satire, and everyone knows he has a political slant; he's a self-described progressive. He provides welcome comic relief to the often depressing and outrageous turn of events in this country. He has also ripped into the hypocrisies and inadequacies from his "own side," but obviously people are going to tend to see the machinations of the "other side" as more nefarious. If you want satire with a different slant, you may find something better elsewhere. Also, yes, Jon Stewart has waxed philosophical on his role as a modern-day court jester, willing to "speak truth to power" through humor, so you are right that it isn't just laughs without meaning or purpose.
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
Actually--moderates are folks that tell pollsters and in-your-face Republicans that they support the Republican buffoonery and then vote Democratic in the booth...
The guy hates his own name and his proud heritage.
Where do you get that? Lots of showbiz people change their names to something they think will be easier to remember or increase their chances to be successful. In his case, the very entry you link suggests he probably did it because he doesn't get along with his father. He's never hidden his Jewish heritage and it features prominently in several bits I've seen him do (and I don't even watch the show much).
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Sadly, I don't live on the east coast, so it would be a long journey for me to go. I encourage anyone who goes to post pictures of the signs on the interweb/series of tubes.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You can't get your way via a bully polpot.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
No one who consistently watches their shows think Stewart or Colbert provide actual news. This is because the people who watch Stewart and Colbert are capable or recognizing parody and satire. It seems as thought the only people who have a problem with what they say are the people who don't like how easy it is for rational human beings with a basic ability to exercise critical thinking can deconstruct the BS being shoved in our faces by the "other" pundits and commentators. I apologize for the horrible run on sentences, but Colbert never told me how to properly use an ellipsis.
To be more precise, Colbert always says they are the same show, split in two half-an-hour segments. Jon Stewart is the executive producer of The Colbert Report. While Stewart's character is actually Jon Stewart, Colbert's character is Colbert (with a silent "t"), the opposite of the artist, and almost all of his lines are full of sarcasm. If you agree with Colbert (silent "t") the joke is on you.
Yeah! Damn him for not being proud of his heritage! Real Americans are *proud* of their heritage! Like me! I'm SO proud of it!
*burns cross while displaying massive Confederate flag*
It's about HERITAGE, not hate! Promise!
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
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
Aren't daily show watchers generally more informed on event than non-watchers? Probably because it's not funny if your completely clueless.
Also, Tea Party are social conservatives in the disguise of libertarians. Much like the constitution party.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
See, its not ignoring Beck that's hard. Personally, I find it easy to do. However, the part that cannot be ignored is that there is a large segment of the population who does not ignore him, who takes him very seriously, and for some reason is allowed to vote.
Ignoring a leader becomes more dangerous as the number of followers grows. It's never the leader you need to worry about, its the people who actually carry out his orders.
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
The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).
Then explain why people who watch The Daily Show have been shown (via objective tests and surveys and the like) to know more about what's going on in the world than people who watch CNN. Jon would be the first to point out that there's something wrong with this picture, but that doesn't mean that he's doing a disservice to his audience.
His rally is seriousness dressed up as comedy, just like his TV show.
Most great comedy has a serious point wrapped inside of it. For instance, George Carlin did a spiel on rape, where he made quite offensive jokes ("Hey, she [a 90-year-old] was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe.") as a way of pointing out that rapists are horrible scum and that "Hey, she was asking for it" is no excuse.
Now Colbert, he's making fun of Stewart just as much as he's making fun of GB.
And now we get to the real truth: You're not concerned about whether Jon is being serious or comic, or even providing useful news. You're just upset because he's targeting somebody you agree with, and by extension, you.
I am officially gone from
Exactly. Very unfunny things.
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?
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.
You do realize that Colbert more fully skewers the right than Stewart does, right? Stewart is fairly non partisan. Colbert, on the other hand builds his whole shtick on mocking the right. Colbert is very serious, but he is so good at what he does that idiots on the right think he is on their side! Amazing.
I agree with most of what you say. However, I had an idiot on the left try to tell me that Colbert was seriously on the right side of the spectrum. He literally couldn't see the difference between the parody and the real thing. He thought Colbert was "The Daily Show" for conservatives. So the "right" does not have a monopoly on the idiot market.
And that is actually part of the problem. There are people who only get their news from shows like these. While Steward and Colbert base their comedy on real world events, they only show the parts that support their side. It wouldn't really be funny to see the whole clip that contains comments that nullifies the joke, and the whole point of these shows is to be funny. Unfortunately, people see real clips from real news shows and think they are getting real news.
It's not S/C's fault. They are doing their job. It's sad because people just don't care enough to get the whole story behind the joke.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
They are serious too. This is a political rally as much as Glenn Beck's was except dressed up as comedy. Btw, I find it kind of sad that instead of criticizing those in power (as they did relentlessly and hilariously when Bush was in the office) the "political satirists" are now rallying on behalf of a political party in power ahead of a difficult election. These two are not about comedy anymore, like Maher, they have become blatant political activists on behalf of the Democrat party.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Since the web page for each one has a big link to the other one? Almost certainly.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).
- no no no no no no no no no, the problem is not that Stewart is encroaching into the domain of news, the problem is that news as it is delivered by 'main stream news media' became indistinguishable from comedy.
You can't handle the truth.
If you think Colbert is just goofy and doesn't attack the right in his show, you should sit down and study his recent interview with Laura Ingraham. He makes repeated attacks at her book (The Obama Diaries), calling it terrible writing with disgusting racial stereotypes, all while smiling and laughing. It's honestly incredible how effective he is at setting her off balance, to the point that she makes a weak attempt to change the topic near the end of the interview. That specific interview, in my mind, is truly one of the greatest demonstrations of his skill as a political satirist.
Colbert is a mockery of O'Really (sic), and for that I congratulate him. He's actually funny. Stewart just comes across as an angry bitter man trying to be funny most of the time.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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!".
The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian
Jon Stewart's response when the first polls were done that showed how large and politically informed his audience is: "People, we make stuff up! We follow a show about puppets making prank phone calls."
One of the big problems with "The Media" (and benefits to getting your news via Stewart) is that they seem to have a short attention span.
When a politician says one thing and then, a few months later, completely reverses course for no good reason, few news agencies will hold them to their past words. They will just take the new sound bites and play them over and over. Jon Stewart's team will unearth the old sound bites and play them along with the new ones showing the viewer the shift.
It is one thing if new data/evidence/etc leads a politican to reverse course. I respect (and expect) this. All too often, though, it is just poll numbers, a big campaign contribution or an attempt to spin a bad situation that suddenly causes a shift in policies/words.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Stewart can be serious too.
Check these out:
Stewart on Crossfire
Jon Stewart wins, CNN cancels Crossfire
Where are those people who oppose the war now? We're still at war in Afghanistan, and yet those people have all but disappeared. Oh because it is THEIR guy running the war it must be okay.
Obama lied, and people died!
We're still at war, where are the war protesters?
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
There's enough hypocrisy to go around, quit pretending it is only one sided.
People were opposed to the Iraq war (a war without a reason), not against the war in Afghanistan (a war justified by the events of 9/11.) People were opposed to the Iraq war because it prevented the US from completing the mission in Afghanistan. Had the Iraq war never started, chances are we would have been out of Afghanistan quite a while ago.
For someone who complain about the war opponents, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of the events they were opposing, do you?
It definitely is. Self-promotion... getting the public involved in generating revenue for Viacom instead of just spinning their DVRs.
It's great commercial theatre. Many of the people who complain loudest about obtrusive advertising are enthusiastically becoming living advertisements for one of the world's largest media conglomos
It's all marketing, but it's a different kind of marketing. Not exactly viral marketing but definitely not traditional. It's marketing where you convince the customer to market to themselves.
[Citation Needed]
Ooops
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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?
Dressing something up as satire leaves you holding all the cards. His agenda is advanced, and any shortcomings are glossed over with "this is satire". It removes any accountability or responsibility, or even any demand for consistency or explanation.
I don't know anybody on the right who thinks that Colbert is serious, but some of us watch him anyway because he is genuinely funny. It's hilarious that you think of Jon Stewart as being non partisan and just as ignorant as those on the right who think Colbert is on their side. It is precisely his left wing political zeal which shines through in a angry and bitter way, though he tries to hide it, that makes him unfunny.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Where are those people who oppose the war now? We're still at war in Afghanistan, and yet those people have all but disappeared. Oh because it is THEIR guy running the war it must be okay.
Obama lied, and people died!
1.) You're quoting Republican talking points. I have a hard time believing your comments are not politically biased when you do so.
2.) Obama ran on a "surge in Afghanistan because that's the war we should be fighting" platform. (Note: I'm paraphrasing what his platform was.) He also ran on a platform of ending the Iraq war. He's lived up to those promises, for all intents and purposes. (There are still 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq, but he's winding down things in Iraq and surging them in Afghanistan.)
I'm sure the people who wanted Obama to end both wars immediately aren't exactly pleased with what he's doing. If they're pragmatic, though, they will appreciate his efforts. There will always be people unhappy with whatever decisions are made. A good number of those people will also be in the President's own party. But if the antiwar rallies are any less passionate now, it's most likely caused by Obama's actions toward ending war.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
"I don't watch TV and therefore am better than you"
That would be an awesome sign for the Stewart/Colbert rally.
What scares me is that, sometimes, I will find myself agreeing with something Colbert is saying, even though I am fully aware that he is being satirical. Although, I think the fact that I am fully aware of it and that I am scared by it at least shows I'm not completely crazy, right?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Don't you mean Jonathan Leibowitz?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart [wikipedia.org]
The guy hates his own name and his proud heritage.
I have a Jewish name, and I'd consider changing it if I went into showbiz for the simple fact that it doesn't just sound Jewish, it's Old Aramaic (Or older, I'm no linguist)
It doesn't exactly transfer well to English due to the whole lacking of English vowels deal.
So would changing my name to fit easily into everyday English conversation be considered hating my heritage?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).
It's funny that you say this, because just a week or two ago I was reading a study that was studying the correlation of how well people were informed on political issues with what media sources that people were regularly exposed to. I wish I had the link handy...
However, the thing that was funny was that those that regularly watched Colbert and Stewart were among the most politically informed. They were near the top of the list, along with those that listened to NPR news, Bill O'Reilley and Rush Limbaugh. If I recall correctly, all of these were above CNN.
Near the bottom of the list was Fox News.
So I'm going to disagree. The problem isn't people getting too much of their news from them, the problem is that "News" networks are less effective at conveying the news than a comedy show is. Blaming the comedy show is pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
Personaly: I was protesting THE WAR IN IRAQ. The war in Afghanistan has some relationship to the attacks on 9/11. The war in Iraq was foist upon us because they finally had the chance to get away with it by implying a relationship to 9/11 (with no proof). The war in Afghanastan was COMPLETLY mismanaged becouse it was back burnered to an unnecisary war in Iraq.... maybe it's not a Republicrat vs Democrin argument, I hate both Kodos AND Krang, maybe some of us think for ourselves.
Was the Afghan war necessary, that's debatable. Was it justified, I think it clearly was.Neither can be said for Iraq. /end Troll feeding
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
Are you referring to the Cindy Sheehan who protested at Martha's Vineyard when Obama was staying there in August of 2009? The same Cindy Sheehan who was arrested last October while protesting Obama's continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan outside the White House? The very same person who went to Norway to protest Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, and who was arrested again this past March outside the White House?
Yeah, you're right. It's all about Bush, and has nothing to do with the war.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
These two are not about comedy anymore, like Maher, they have become blatant political activists on behalf of the Democrat party. ... because a rally that mocks the wacky extremists on either side of the political spectrum is somehow Democrat-ful?
I don't see any way to defend that, unless your thesis is that most conservatives are loony extremists.
If you watch Colbert report or anything Colbert does as a serious word-for-word documentary of his thoughts, you've lost the whole point.
He's intentionally charactered as a severe right-wing republican who would be the destruction America if people thought like him. The character was created BECAUSE there are people like that, and it sets a new light to it to give people a laugh... or even shame and ridicule someone into a smarter decision. The later I don't see happening since most of those have no conscience and are hellbent on their own ideologies.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
... And unfortunately people take Colbert seriously far too often.
The Irony of Satire: "Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements."
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Agreed. Myself and many of my friends are planning to attend this rally, and none of us have ever gone to a political rally before. If anything, anecdotal evidence is pointing to Stewart/Colbert having a rally that far exceeds their 25,000 limit, and could equal Woodstock.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The DonorsChoose fund drive page that redditors have been giving to in droves to get Colbert's attention.
Please also donate, if you can.
Stewart always walks a fine line because he is both a comedian and someone with deep, sincere beliefs. He is a great court jester, able to poke the absurdity of people around him. At the same time, he is fully willing to sucker punch people who think him only a fool - see his Crossfire-killing interview or his utter dismantling of Jim Cramer. When he does go serious, there's always this hint of frustration with the rest of the world to his voice - a sort of "why do I have to be the one to do this? Why has nobody else stepped up and done this?" tone.
It's interesting how he has taken what started as an anti-Beck meme and is trying to mold it into something non-partisan. I think he fears that his own fans are at risk of becoming part of the radicalization problem. So although the rally may be a jab at the Glen Becks of the world, it's also a subtle tug at his own audience to urge them not to become just a mirror of Beck - to try to find the common ground rather than just an opposing hilltop.
Stewart just comes across as an angry bitter man trying to be funny most of the time.
And succeeding a huge portion of the time. It's not your style of humor. That's fine. I personally don't understand how anyone could ever even smile while Two and a Half Men is on, but me, you, and those folks will just have to agree to disagree.
Where are those people who oppose the war now? We're still at war in Afghanistan, and yet those people have all but disappeared. Oh because it is THEIR guy running the war it must be okay.
.
. .
We're still at war, where are the war protesters?
People were against the Iraq war. Many believed it was unnecessary and unjustified. They were not against the Afghan war. Obama pledged to end the war in Iraq during his campaign. The government has slowly pulled back from Iraq. Some people don't think it happened fast enough; some people think it's happening too fast. However people don't protest Obama as much because he didn't start the war; he got stuck with it and is trying to fulfill his campaign promise to end it.
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
There are two main points for the war protest. The first point is the justification for war was misleading. The administration argued that Iraq had WMDs and were fully prepared to use them; this turned out to be highly exaggerated. I believed the administration so I was supportive of it. When it became clear that the administration was misleading about the WMDs, my opinion changed. Had the administration been right, I would not have changed my opinion. The second was the mishandling by the administration of the war. The administration did not adequately plan for occupation and it believed that occupation was going to be easy. Those who disagreed with administration were not heeded. So the Bush administration was wrong about why we needed war and what we needed for war. I think people have a right to protest any of those two reasons.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I said "fairly non partisan." Stewart is more likely to mock whoever is in power, while Colbert mocks the right by mocking the left in the right's voice.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You've covered basically "anti-war". ;) (I kid, but you get the idea)
When it comes to what is being talked about, the real problem was Al-Qaeda and they were in Afghanistan (mostly). America was aiming there but hit Iraq accidentally. I think it was a misdirection, but it was fixed
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
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.
I don't know, I think the Daily show, like any, has its ups and downs. Recently it has come back 'up' after a period of not being very funny. I don't think much of the ups or downs has anything to do with Stewart being angry and bitter. He is a little angry at the laziness of the media, but you don't see that in the show much, only in interviews.
Why would he be angry and bitter? I mean, what do you think he is angry and bitter about? If you see it, you must have some clue as to its source and direction, right?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The most sad thing is that you'd have to push super-hard to get most of the news non-distorted. :) It was a comedy, but it was only a comedy in those situations because of the absurdity.
There were quite a few times I'd recieved news though most of the ordinary channels (cnn, nbc, abc, cbs, not fox, newspapers, etc) and watched Jon Stewart and got documented facts, with video of it, and even the opposite side
Like I have said for 8 years when Bush was in office... comedians can just record and play what's happening for a laugh.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
...you are twelve and what is this?
from your wikipedia link: "So far, however, the protests have not been as prominent as Protests against the Iraq War"
protests against the Afghanistan war numbered in the tens of thousands. Protests against the Iraq War numbered in the millions.
Yes there are some people against the war in Afghanistan, but there are a bout a hundred times as many against the war in Iraq.
Obama is more or less keeping his promises of ending the Iraq War and is trying to find a peaceful way to manage the Iran situation. So many people like me are in "wait and see" mode right now.
If Obama starts bombing Iran for no reason you can expect there to be some big protests.
Really? I don't see Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert hawking gold companies during commercial breaks.
Beck *scares* people into thinking the country is moments away from civil-war, and then gets on the air as a spokesman for a company that'll buy your gold. At low-low prices, so they can resell it for high-high prices!
Way to go. Snookering the very idiots he claims to be representing during his show! How very capitalistic of him. At least he's not a socialist, right?
I swear, Joe McCarthy had more moral integrity.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Personal anecdote appreciated.
Personally, I think we should have no troops in Afghanistan, as we cannot win there. We should have bombed them back into the stone age and left, or perhaps let Pakistan annex them or something.
Actually to go further, I would suggest to you that we shouldn't be sending troops overseas without the consent of congress and a declared war on a declared target.
War is a terrible thing, and there's a reason why there are Constitutional rules for going to war.
If we go to war, we should go in, kill and break as many things possible, until the enemy surrenders.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Are you sure Beck is serious? I think it's all an act he figured out to sell snake-oil and get rich.
I mean, that's like saying that Stuttering John from Howard Stern was "serious".
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It starred Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr, what did you expect?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
My God, you mean there are idiots on the left as well? Shocking. Okay, well, it actually is shocking that anyone on the left could think Colbert was on the right. I mean, a lefty would have to be a whole lot dumber than his right wing counterpart to think that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Nah, Stewart presents proof in a joking manner and let's you make a decision. He doesn't deride you for what you believe, and try to demean you with slow calculated "you just need it drawn on the board to get it" characteristics. That's condescending.
Even if what Beck says is true, it'd still be twisted.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
...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!"
The problem with the news media is that a comedian gives more comprehensive and accurate information on whats going on than what they do.
All the news media gives us now is entertainment pretending to be news. They're all comedians, just that Jon Stewart is the only one being honest about it.
Knowing and understanding the other side of the coin is always the answer. If you disagree with something he says, it's not always bad.
Sometimes, it may have to do with the living environment that you (the person making the disagreement, not you particularly) are within. Your environment means a lot in what ideas are had.
I'm the same... though at least it gives you something to chew on to either concrete your thoughts, or give you new situations to add into the mix.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
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.
/. needs a "+1: Fact-based Ownage" mod for posts like this.
Don't you mean Jonathan Leibowitz?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart
The guy hates his own name and his proud heritage.
That post is wrong on several levels. Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz is his name, and using his middle name instead of his last name makes sense the moment you hear the title "The Daily Show with Jon Leibowitz". As for his heritage, have you watched any of his shows? He is a very openly jewish guy.
Wait, did I just take trollbait?
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.)
Since when does casting your vote equally between all parties make you a moderate?
...and frankly, that's what this rally is all about. It's a statement on how our system is broken, and the two dominant party system is a big part of that. The "silent majority" doesn't vote because of the polarization of the political process. We're fed up with it, and all the idiots that play into its mantra: "If you're not with us, you're against us." THIS stupidity is exactly what the rally is highlighting, and in bringing masses together who disagree with that assertion, a message can be sent to those polarizers on BOTH sides that they are the ones alienating the voters.
What makes me a moderate is voting for a canditate that is the least left OR right skewed. There are radicals in all parties, and not voting for THEM is what a moderate does.
1. Obama never ran on a platform of pulling out of all war.
2. Talking about the war in Afghanistan inevitably brings in talk of how America's intervention in the 70's brought the fall of the Shah, and how not everything changed for the better. So protesting the war becomes tied in with a lot of other cans of worms, and criticizing "The Protesters" for their ideology is a straw man for the simple fact that there is no "The Protesters." Just like there is no "Right" and no "Left." There are, however, fans of Glenn Beck, (and of Colbert, and of Stewart) and if the rally is any measure of Beck's fans' worth, then they need a bit of curtailing before they decide that drinking that Kool-Aid is a spectacular idea.
3. Your penchant for grandiose statements and snide catchphrases puts you more closely on Beck's side than you might like. Bumper sticker logic never serves a person well, and you might want to reconsider whitewashing the other side when it doesn't agree with you.
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!
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
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
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!
Really? Because the show I saw was levelling the same accusations at *both* sides of the American political spectrum. As an outside observer, US political discussion is laughable; it's fear-mongering soundbite after soundbite. Everything is about how terrible the other side is and how they'll sneak into your house and kill your children unless you make sure they don't get into power. There's nothing intelligent about it and the news networks simply parrot the talking points they're given by the parties' PR guys, occasionally having a pair of representatives on to shout at each other for 2 minutes by way of "debate".
Honestly, if there's one thing they need right now it's some sanity.
True; George Stephanopoulos walked out of the White House and into ABC.
maybe it's not a Republicrat vs Democrin argument, I hate both Kodos AND Krang
Krang is the Evil Brain from Dimension X, the degenerate cartoon counterpart of the TCRI/Utroms, master of the Technodrome, and the Evil Shredder's financier.
Kang is the counterpart of Kodos, the aliens on The Simpsons who were named after Klingons.
Bow-ties are cool.
He began using the stage name "Jon Stewart" by dropping his last name and changing the spelling of his middle name "Stuart" to "Stewart." He often jokes this is because people had difficulty with the pronunciation of Leibowitz or it "sounded too Hollywood" (a reference to Lenny Bruce's joke on the same theme). He has implied that the name change was actually due to a strained relationship with his father with whom Stewart no longer has any contact.
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>
/. needs a "+1: Fact-based Ownage" mod for posts like this.
In theory that's what "Informative" should mean - but I think "Fact-based Ownage" sounds a lot more fun. :)
Bow-ties are cool.
"Ignoring a leader becomes more dangerous as the number of followers grows.
You can wail and gnash your teeth all you want, they're allowed. Just like you're allowed to start an "Anti-Beck" group.
Just because you feel some kind of call to action is appropriate doesn't mean it actually is. Democracy, ain't it great?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Stewart went on some show at fox a few years ago and made a very good point. He pretty much made the point that his slogan is not 'fair and balanced' or 'number one in news.' Hell at the time crankyankers led into his show (puppets making prank phone calls). The Daily show has bias but they admit to it and TRY to make it obvious all while being on a comedy channel not news channel.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
In a country of 250 million plus
It's been 300 million plus for over a year.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
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
I think that show was Crossfire on CNN, actually. And yes, Stewart was great on that. He has his own bias in the sense of having strong opinions - but he's also pretty intellectually honest. And even pretty generous to disagreeing guests, in my opinion. I'd cite his interview with Meaghan McCain and Tony Blair as good examples of this.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
RABBLE!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
Nice... XD
God-damn motherfucking lameness filter. I am not the one who used "so many caps"...
Bow-ties are cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
http://north-west-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/anti-afghanistan-war-protest/
http://www.studentsforademocraticsociety.org/?q=node/196
You generalized on the people against war as if it were a monolithic group. You tried to put a partisan spin on it. I clarified that the majority of war protesters (ergo, the ones that count) weren't against the war in Afghanistan. You were called on your rhetorical stupidity.
And what do you do in response? Plaster a bunch of anti-war links, easily obtained by googling "anti war afghanistan". There, give yourself a pat in the back with your illustrious demonstration of 7th grade argumentative skills.
Quoting a bunch of links a valid point does not make. A little bit more of education and non-partisan honesty, and a little less of koolaid will help you see the difference.
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.
The show's writers reject the idea that The Daily Show has become a source of news for young people. Stewart argues that Americans are living in an "age of information osmosis" in which it is close to impossible to gain one's news from any single source, and says that his show succeeds comedically because the viewers already have some knowledge about current events. "Our show would not be valuable to people who didn't understand the news because it wouldn't make sense," he argues. "We make assumptions about your level of knowledge that... if we were your only source of news, you would just watch our show and think, 'I don't know what's happening.'
Personally one of the funnier commentaries is when they played The Imperial March (Darth Vader's Theme) sometimes when they showed Dick Cheney. If you had no clue who Dick Cheney was, you wouldn't know why some people find it funny.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Kang was a Klingon, but Kodos was a leader of a Federation colony who sent thousands to their death.
The person I like to see Jon interview the most is Mike Huckabee. Those are always excellent.
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.
That's +Informative
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
Kang was a Klingon, but Kodos was a leader of a Federation colony who sent thousands to their death.
Aw, dang... I blew it! :)
Bow-ties are cool.
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.)
Dressing something up as commentary leaves you holding all the cards. His agenda is advanced, and any shortcomings are glossed over with "this is opinion". It removes any accountability or responsibility, or even any demand for consistency or explanation.
FTFY. Ok, actually, I hijacked your thoughts, rather than fixing anything. Hopefully you can see why.
Applies equally to most television, radio, and internet "news" programs that include "analysis" or "getting people's opinions".
Personally, I don't give a rat's hindquarters about the opinions of the uninformed or the analysis of partisans, and am offended by the waste of my time when these are inflicted on me. For this reason I have come to avoid most news media, as the signal to noise ratio has devolved over the years.
I do occasionally (rather less than once a month) take in an episode of of Stewart's or Colbert's show (on the net, at my convenience) and generally find them funny. Not all that informative, other than anecdotally, but enjoyable.
Here are some thoughts for you:
If someone tells you flat out that they are cherry picking incidents to make a joke or illustrate a principle, take it for what it's worth - an illustration. Anecdotal evidence does not establish causation nor even correlation.
If someone tells you they are being fair and balanced (gee, where did I get that phrase?) and then cherry picks incidents to distort your perception of reality, they are lying to you.
If someone uses poll results as indicating anything other than a measurement of the opinions of the people polled at the time of the poll, as guided by the wording of the poll questions, they are lying to you. Let me emphasize this: Polls measure opinions, imperfectly. Science tests guesses. Ideology sells fantasy to fools. Do not accept any of these as infallible truth.
If the paychecks of a reporter are funded by a party with an interest in the story, chances are good that bias will occur, even when unintended.
I've occasionally had experiences where a television or print reporter created a story about some event in which I was a participant or organizer or otherwise involved or present. In every single case, significant portions of the story were misleading or just plain wrong. Let me repeat that: Every single case. Just because somebody reports something doesn't mean it happened, or happened that way. In fact, it probably didn't.
So, how about we get down to honesty, and say that news programs exist to sell advertising, or to promote the agenda of the people paying for the program. Even NPR/PBS (or the equivalent in your country) have to please their contributors, which leads to bias in the selection of stories and sometimes the tone.
So, when you go about building your own mental picture of how the world works and what people do or think or want, be aware that every bit of information you receive is subject to the biases of the person or organization that provided it to you. Accept it, because nothing will ever change that. Measure it and account for it when you can.
WALSTIB!
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.
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.
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?
I agree with most of what you say. However, I had an idiot on the left try to tell me that Colbert was seriously on the right side of the spectrum. He literally couldn't see the difference between the parody and the real thing. He thought Colbert was "The Daily Show" for conservatives. So the "right" does not have a monopoly on the idiot market.
Do I know you? ^.^
:D
I used to watch just the Daily Show. I watched Colbert just at a glance and couldn't tell the difference before switching channels. Your acquaintance probably did the same thing as me. It wasn't until forcing myself to watch several minutes that I realized.
After that epiphany, I'm still wondering if Sarah Palin is actually making fun of them too...
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
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..
That, or he's worried about being confused with the guy with the canticle...
+1 amazing sci-fi reference. :)
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I wouldn't take Beck so seriously. ...
Your best defense against these types is to simply ignore them.
They tried that in Sweden with the neo-nazi, racist, party "Sverige Demokraterna". Media & politicians felt that by ignoring them they would fade away. After all, they had only gotten about 1% of the vote in the previous election and the cut-off to get into parliament is 4%.
What happened was they got 5.6% of the vote, got into parliament and now have a tie-breaker vote between the 2 established coalitions.
Ignoring the nuts is often not a good thing.
"...I realized that a significant percentage of the country was taking him seriously. WTFF?"
I suppose you'd rather the country take the left-wing nut bags seriously instead? Lord help us...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
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.
Good job missing the point; unless you're waving that sign ironically to make a meta-joke illustrating that only idiots that miss the point would be waving a sign like that. If that's the case, kudos.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
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.
Half the stuff he says is serious. Check out his roast of Bush. He says, "reality has a well known liberal bias." He says, "This administration is rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." And, "the president believes the same thing on Wednesday as he does on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday." He says, "your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is [because of global warming]." Colbert is not afraid to speak the truth if it is funny.
Qxe4
..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.
He did do a full interview in the O'Reilly show as well earlier this year.
Linky
No matter how you feel about the guy's program, you gotta admire him for his balls for steppings into the lion's den and taking it on the chin.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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"?
Really, you have seen Jon Stewart lampoon Obama's mis-speaks as much as he did Bush's? Obama makes as many bloopers as Bush did, you just don't hear about them ad nauseum.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
My point was about the code pinkers and Cyndi Sheehan types who were protesting both wars and now can't be found anywhere.
Since Obama's inauguration, Cindy Sheehan has been arrested twice in front of the White House for protesting. She's demonstrated outside of his vacation home in Martha's Vineyard, and was doing the same on the streets of Oslo when he was getting the Nobel Prize. Code Pink is still protesting; I can easily find a reference to them doing so last Halloween in front of the White House.
Now ask yourself; is the problem with the protesters going away, or is the problem with the news media?
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?
Good job he went for a name like John Stuart then.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
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
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.
And which of the internets has Obama been misunderestimating lately?
Like it or not, Bush's speech was a comedy goldmine, whereas someone just tripping over their words isn't that funny.
Obviously if you can provide clips of said comedy bloopers I'm happy to be proven wrong - I can't profess to having heard all, or indeed many of Obama's speaking engagements.
It was on Crossfire CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Unless the politician does have a good reason for changing his position, in which case the media will pillory him for not blindly "staying the course!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Looks like some people can't wait and have already started staining their shorts.
Who knew that when Colbert said to "Pack an overnight bag with five extra sets of underwear -- you're going to need them.", he was addressing AC directly?
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
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.
How could anyone not believe that bears are the #1 threat facing the United States?? Stupid liberals.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but bombing them into the stone age would have too much collateral damage, and annexation would only spread the Taliban/Al Qaida cancer to Pakistan faster.
As for the rest of your post, I agree completely!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
But he's on a *news* channel, not a comedy channel.
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
John Stewart's march is the one advocating tolerance.
Colbert's march is the sarcastic counter to that (Keep-Fear-Alive!).
Sounds like I touched a nerve with you, though.
Perhaps you should change out your colostomy bag, dude. Clearly your current one is all backed up.
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
"But my whole family takes it as news."
Then the problem is y9our family, not Beck. Unless you're not serious in your veiled suggestion that Beck be some how silenced. Taking away free speech never solves anything.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
1. Maybe "UnknownFool" meant that now that a "CNN-approved" president is in office, we no longer see coverage of Code Pink, Sheehan, lists of dead soldiers, etc.
Not sure what you are talking about. We are still getting coverage of the war in Afghanistan, and we don't see much from Iraq cuz... GASP... we pulled out?
2. According to Code Pink (http://wwww.codepinkforpeace.org) they are a group of women opposed to war. They don't justify the war in Afghanistan any more than they justify the war in Iraq.
There is always a group that will oppose something. Wow, what a great revelation captain obvious. What matters is not whether a group based on an opinion exists, but whether it is 1)( significant and 2) effective in spreading their opinion if such is their desire.
I suspect though, that if a Republican were to hold office after 2012, we'd see coverage of their protests.
That's just bullshit, and I say this as a lifetime registered Republican who voted against Obama. One of the main reasons the GOP lost is because its pandering to the fringe right and their stupid rhetorical nonsense. Stop drinking the koolaid; it's choking your brain off oxygen.
I wonder if they've been co-opted?
Wonder if you must.
3. A common theme among the various Tea-Partiers is an observation of hypocracy by media, progressives, etc. Note speeches that begin with "they don't get it...". Progressives ignore the Tea Party movement's valid comments and focus on the lunatic fringe at their peril.
Progressives and even Republicans like me ignore the Tea Party exactly because of their lunatic fringes. It is impossible dialog with them. It's all about fear mongering. And I don't really care if they have a point so long as they tacitly pander to individuals who do not see me (or other fellow Americans) as equal but instead as what is wrong with America (as if there were anything wrong enough to cause such partisan stupidity.)
At the end of the day, it is a calm, rational voice that will prevail. Enough of the smarmy, snarky, patronizing, gotch-ya-based screeds. Enough already, we're all convinced that you must be the smartest guys in the chat room, who cares? - is anyone listening?
A calm, rational voice would never think that war coverage has been reduced by a news media conspiracy just because Obama is the white house.
Had the Iraq war never started, chances are we would have been out of Afghanistan quite a while ago.
You would've been the first foreigners in over 2000 years to win a war in Afghanistan. Please. I find the Iraq war as offensive as anyone with a brain, but claiming that "if only (whatever) we would have won in Afghanistan" is arrogant at best.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Or a "+1 mnemonic enhancer" in this case.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Uhmm... The media mentioned SD all the time and kept pointing out that SD were a threat. Sure they did not invite them to debates perhaps but they hardly ignored them.
How about having been to all of the 57 states? There are more, but I'm not going to go and dig them all up. It just shows my point, the press doesn't report Obama's slip ups. When Obama gets off of the Teleprompter, he is just as much of a comedy goldmine as Bush was.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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
Had the Iraq war never started, chances are we would have been out of Afghanistan quite a while ago.
You would've been the first foreigners in over 2000 years to win a war in Afghanistan. Please. I find the Iraq war as offensive as anyone with a brain, but claiming that "if only (whatever) we would have won in Afghanistan" is arrogant at best.
Why? Why arrogant? In fact, the arrogant is you since you seem to forget two things:
1. The war in Afghanistan wasn't meant to be a war of conquest but one of extermination of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That's what the American people signed for. That we got something else (thanks to Bush), that's another thing.
2. The Northern Alliance was a great participant, committing the bulk of the fighters in the drive through Kabul down to Kandahar. So it was not then (as it is not now) a war between a Western power and the Afghans, but a war between Afghan combatants, one of them backed by the coalition.
Had Al Qaeda (an organization foreign to the Afghans) been eliminated - which we could have had we had the focus - we could have obtain the rightful objectives of the war. We could have had forced the Taliban to the negotiation table at best (or liquidate them if needed), and the transitional Afghan government would have been in better shape to take the reigns of its own defense. We could have started the reconstruction of Afghanistan (which is still taking place, but at a much slower and painful pace.)
That would have meant to win the war. That would have meant the measure to victory. It is infantile to think the measure of victory in a war is one of complete conquest.
It also is disingenuous and dishonest to compare the colonial wars of old with the war effort of dislodging and eliminating Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (and if possible, correct wrongs committed against that nation by us and the USSR during the cold war.)
You call me arrogant. I call you partisantly disingenuous at best (and hypocrite at worst).
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
Both these shows do what the real news channels will not. Show a politician lying, then show the video that proves he is lying. How hard is that to do, really?
I never thought of it that way. I was kind of annoyed that he equated the utter insanity on the right with what goes on in the left during his rally to sanity promotion on his show. Nothing on the left compares to the problems Bush Jr. caused or how crazy Tea Partiers are, or how screwed up the Republican Party has become over the last 30 years, but when you put it that way I guess I can see why he would try to emphasize rationality even if it requires stretching the fabric of truth a bit.
But that's his Kodos operandi!
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
When he does go serious, there's always this hint of frustration with the rest of the world to his voice - a sort of "why do I have to be the one to do this? Why has nobody else stepped up and done this?" tone.
That sums up much of what I feel about The Daily Show's coverage. When Stewart goes off the comic message and starts veering into actual punditry, it often carries this hint that he'd rather be doing comedy but he can't stand the fact that no one else is doing the real analysis of the issues. And I'd include his recent checking on Obama, comparing some of his speeches to what he'd said during his campaign, to fall into much the same category.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
"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.
your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is [because of global warming]...
That's just wrong. We know what dinosaurs are.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
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
Dressing something up as satire leaves you holding all the cards. His agenda is advanced, and any shortcomings are glossed over with "this is satire". It removes any accountability or responsibility, or even any demand for consistency or explanation.
Much as it was in the days when only the Dwarf in the jester's cap could mock the King.
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.
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.
Fox News is making prank phone calls now?
The reason why Stewart is taken seriously is not that his show is serious it that all other American news sources are just as laughable but not as funny. Stewart isn't a good newscaster, the newscasters are very poor comedians.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Wow, someone is clutching at straw(man)s.
Entertainers change their names for many reasons, to make them more pronounceable, racial stereotypes, to make them more neutral or naturalised (Natalie Portman was born Natalie Hershlag) , even just changing Juan to John to stop from sounding Mexican to avoid anti-Mexican sentiment. Sometimes it's only because someone in the Writers Guild has the same name (Futurama writer David X Cohen only has an X in his name because the Writers Guild already had a David Cohen on the books)
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Perhaps the Democrat's political positions just aren't as laughable?
BTW, he HAS heaped a fair amount of ridicule on Democrats who can't get their agenda advanced in the face of the "insurmountable Republican minority".
So you really think you can eliminate the Taliban by war? They're not an army, they are an idea. It strikes me as the same stupidity the romans exhibited when they thought they could eliminate christians by feeding them to the lions.
It is this illusion of america as the world power, the guys who can go into bad places to "fix" them.
If my history serves correctly, it worked once in the entire american history - with Germany after WW2. You forget, however, that this was with a people that were looking up to the US, considered it a land of dreams and were from a similar culture anyways.
Now try to put yourself into the average Afghan's shoes. There are some people, not from any foreign country, but from the Great Satan. They speak only gibberish in their own language and come over to tell you - after all you've endured with the russians and the Taliban and the warlord and the drug trade and everything else - how to run your life. They are also heretics at best, followers of an outright evil religion at worst, some even those guys you've heard about slaughtering your brothers in far away Palestine.
Oh, and they bombed the village next door yesterday. Some people you knew died.
Yeah, you are sure to listen to them. Well, if you treasure your survival, you will pretend to, wait until they leave (like every invader before them) and then go back to your old ways.
You call me arrogant. I call you partisantly disingenuous at best (and hypocrite at worst).
As I have no part in american politics, I mostly find both parties equally distasteful. Though the republicans under Bush certainly set new standards.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
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...
Elimination doesn't simply mean erradication. It means beating them to the point of being combat ineffectual so that the transitional government can take up his defense.
Given that the Taliban are one version of a movement that is spanning pretty much all of the muslim states (minus Turkey and Egypt, mostly), how long do you think any transitional government would hold? Would you invade again when the Taliban win a majority in a democratic election in five or ten years?
They are a militant group fueled by an idea and by ethnic tensions. They are to be eliminated or contained by military means and by reconstructing Afghanistan (so that youth have better alternatives.) As it is, they are a fringe even among the conservative Pashtuns.
True, they are the extremists.
True, building up Afghanistan is the only thing that may (may!) prevent their return to power.
We have all done a lousy job on reconstruction. Mostly due to those stupid political compromises. Nevertheless, you can bomb Hussein's Republic Guard into oblivion as they were an organized unit and once destroyed are unlikely to reform. The Taliban, however, are not a military unit. They have all the advantages of the guerilla - mostly being able to choose when to fight and when to simply disappear in the population - and the additional plus of being religious fanatics. They could go farming for five years and then come back.
t has nothing to do with illusion. Right or wrong, 9/11 happened and the only recourse of action was to attack them, and to assist those Afghans already at war with the Taliban, or are they an illusion, too?
Yes, obviously, the only recourse to a group of Saudis and UAE nationals flying planes into buildings is to bomb Afghanistan.
Not that I don't understand you had to bomb someone, and that there actually is a link between the Taliban and Al Kaida - but the certainty above is not rational. There would have been other ways to spend the same amount of money to undermine both organisations. They could have been more successful. We'll never know, because the only option was choosen...
Unfortunately, you seem to forget that the majority of Afghans were against the Taliban yoke to begin with, in particular among the non-Pashtun and moderate Pashhuns (the bulk of the population.) You are still trying to make this as if it were a war of assimilation. It is not.
Contrary to the thinking of Bush, it is not "with us or against us". Afghans may not be all Taliban, that doesn't mean they are automatically pro-US. Wasn't that kind of the same mistake your leaders made in Iraq, where they were so sure the people would welcome them with open arms once they had removed Saddam? Ooops.
Unfortunately, you seem to forget that the majority of Afghans were against the Taliban yoke to begin with, in particular among the non-Pashtun and moderate Pashhuns (the bulk of the population.) You are still trying to make this as if it were a war of assimilation. It is not.
Could be. Could also turn out not to be. Again, looking at Iraq it was probably the dumbest idea ever to dispose of a secular dictator in favour of religious fanatics who all hate your guts. We'll find out which way Afghanistan turns, but how many lessons about foreign policy has america got to learn and pay for with the blood of foreign civilians ?
Yes, I am partisan in that sense. I find it deeply disturbing to run this kind of experiments with the lives of other people.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.