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.
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.
Try not to take the "I'm afraid of Spiders" thing too seriously".
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 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.
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.
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
But you do apparently have the internet, through which one can view their shows.
For someone who trots out his "I don't watch TV and therefore am better than you" sign as often as you do you either are very bad at doing feigned ignorance well or are doing willful ignorance very well.
I 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
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.
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
"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.
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
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.
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.
You can thank Reddit for this.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
... 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.
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.
Because there is heavy left lean amongst the boards operators, let alone some who feel threatened by people don't think like them.
Just watch the moderation and see it in action. It is really humorous to see stories like this bring out the viciousness of some who go out of their way to put down those on the right - either by direct attack or inference.
This country was made great because we are open to all ideas. We move left and right and try to maintain a balance.
The animosity has always been there, but trying to attribute it to one side exclusively is very dishonest.
Beck's gathering was impressive for a radio host, but he was capitalizing on something he did not generate, as such it had a great response.
I really doubt either of the two comedians will do similar because they are not going to get people with the same level of emotional investment. Best of luck to them, but mocking rarely does anything but make you look weak. Air America failed because they mocked, they didn't originate. Hopefully these two can do better.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
...you are twelve and what is this?
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.
It starred Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr, what did you expect?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
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!"
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
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>
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
A large part of their popularity has nothing to do with the juvenile humor - it's because they're more accurate and honest when reporting on current events than the other news outlets, from the blatantly fictional reports of Fox news, to the subtly slanted reports CNN gives. The Daily Show and Colbert Report lay it out as it is, and most of their humor comes from pointing out the absurdity of the actual happenings.
It's pretty sad when a show that is supposed to be dedicated comedy is considered a more trustworthy news source than CNN.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
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"?
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.
and I don't support forcing people to buy healthcare,
Just FYI, we already force everyone to buy health care. We do it via Medicare/Medicaid taxes (for everyone) and by raising the price of health care for the paying consumer. I don't know if Obamacare will be cheaper or better or what, but the forcing people to buy health care is simply making the fact explicit. You and I and everyone that pays taxes or pays for their health care at all are already supporting the people that don't pay.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
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
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
You're not listening. The law indicates that insurance companies must cover anyone, including pre-existing conditions.
Clearly this is expensive, so as an apparent bone the bill requires that everyone get insurance, as you describe.
The problem is that the fine is less than insurance would cost. So the wise consumer will not buy insurance, and will instead pay the fine. Should he get sick and need insurance, he can then just go buy it as needed.
Therefore, the ratio of healthy/sick people will go way down, and insurance companies will not be able to operate without massively hiking rates. Either they'll be prevented from doing so by law, or nobody will be able to afford it and the Democrats will come back "see, look how expensive insurance is, let's just go single payer".
In short, contrary to requiring everyone to buy insurance, this bill does _exactly_ the opposite and encourages healthy people not to get insurance, since they can just buy it in an emergency now.