I am not sure where you get she admitted the words were real. Please provide a link (non CNN or CBS).
They have talked to many people about this and nobody without a link to a political party can prove one way or the other. The commanding officers family have even gone on record as saying that the words used in the document would never have come from their relative. Even other military people have looked at it and said it was a fake based off of just the words.
CBS now admits they were taken to the cleaners.
You mention Clinton. Who was offered Bin Ladden and didn't take him? I will not blame him for that mistake, because hind site is almost 20/20.
You have an issue with him and his view on gay marrage. You and I disgree there also. That is another conversation though. If the judges in America would not try and create law but rule on it, this would not be an issue. You do realize that near 70% of the people in the U.S. don't support gay marrage? What exactly is Kerry's position on Gay marrage? Being a Catholic, people should know.... ahhh but he is in a trap there. Catholics believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE and is morally wrong. What does he believe?
Why are we in Iraq? It was for Oil remember:-) Oh yeah, that wasn't the case... but the liberals kept saying it was. Was there any WBD's?? None found yet, but three different intelligence agencies said he had them. Was it because Saddam had over 10 years to comply with U.N. sanctions and under the threat of war he was held to comply, but didn't. Saddam constantly kicked out U.N. inspectors and thought he was developing a WMD program. Thank God his own people were lieing to him. I ask you. Would the sanctions ever have worked? At what point do you use force? 20 years 30 years 50 years? France admitted that they would NEVER approve the use of force, yet the signed the sanction that said Saddam must comply or face the threat of war.
Even Kerry (on an even day) admits that he would have done the same thing.
If you love America there are probably reasons to like one candidate over another but here are some questions to ask.
1. Who would do a better job of protecting America? 2. Who would be more likely to turn American troops over to U.N. control? 3. At what point does life begin? 4. Is a socialized medical system good for America? 5. Is raising taxes going to promote more jobs going overseas? 6. Which candidate is more likely to protect the 2nd Amendment? 7. Which candidate is more likely to protect marrage? 8. Which candidate is more likely to raise taxes on the middle class?
I have never said that he only picks on republicans. My two points about his show are as follows: 1. He shows 10-20second clips to make the political person look like an ass. Yet he rips on crossfire for "hurting amercia".
2. He and his employees are liberal and as such focus a larger percentage of their attacks on concervatives.
I(We, my people). I am not sure what the heck you are talking about. Give an inch? If Bush purgured himself to a grand jury he would be out of office. Do you honestly believe that the party of Jessy Jackson, Al Sharpton and Julia Carson is the party of facts?
Republicans have destroyed credibility? Like him or not, Bush does not change his views often. You know what you are getting with him. This lends to his credibility. Now the Democrats have some issues. You can't support the war one week and not the next then change again to support it. You cannot say that you are a Catholic and then promote pro choice.
However, to get back to my main point.
Jon Steward saying crossfire is bad for America is a bit or an irony when he himself constantly tries to make politicians look like idiots.
Am I ignoring any points... No. The document was proven a fake. It was the cornerstone of the argument. When it falls so does the rest. Then the questions MUST be turned to why did CBS run with the story.
Yes John Kerry is a decorated war hero. Now isn't it fair that the people that served with him, who have been arguing with him since the 1970's (not just right now) have their say. Also the guy who said there was no firefight has an acceptable answer. One bullet does not count as a "firefight" to some. To others it does. Doesn't it seem strange to you that the vast majority of people that have served with John Kerry side with the Swift Vote guys? Now because Kerry has focused a large part of his campain on his service in Vietnamn, it is only fair that the people he served with be heard.
The CBS story has been proven false. I don't know why you find this so hard to accept. Again, the cornerstone of their "facts" was proven to be fake. Now when checked further the people they got their facts from have some serious credibility issues. Given that CBS will not fully disclose their sources, we cannot know the real truth of the story. Doesn't that seem odd to you? During the final days of an election a major news organization can run a anti Bush add errr story and then hide behind their "sources". That sounds more like the Enquirer or Star, not a major news orgainization.
The document has been 100% proven to be false. It was a poor hoax and a hope to fool people like you in to believing it. It backfired on them and will probably be one of the reasons Bush wins the election. At a minimum it will perminately damage Dan's career at CBS.
Even he admitted that if he would have been the one to gather the information on the story he would NOT have ran with it. It could not be proven one way or the other.
Your zealorty is blinding you. Do I think Bush got preferred treatment during vietnamn? YES!!!! Did Kerry? YES!!!! Does Bush use his service to further his political career? Not really. Has Kerry used it to further his? Yes. If you look at Kerry's voteing record you will see that he is anything but pro military. He has consistantly been against it. He is not stupid though, and knowing that his record will kill him with our former and current armed service people he needed to promote his military career. Unfortunately for him that career has many sides to it. The John Kerry who earned metals in war and the one who "threw them away". So Kerry needs the military vote in a major way to win some key states. He pushed his military service and it backfired on him. Some people were angry at this (like you) and decided to go on the attack against Bush. Those people got sucked in on a story that was not true. Could parts of it be true? We will never know because once the foundation is found out to be a lie the rest cannot and should not be taken seriously.
Umm, the core document that was presented was PROVEN to be a fake. That is far from trivial. The point is that CBS WANTED to believe that the document and story was real. Why? I believe that there are two main reasons for this.
1. They, and every news organization want the election to be close. They will get more viewers if it is close. 2. They were angry that the Swift Vote ads were and are working against Kerry. They thought by running a negative ad errr news story against Bush it would even things out. The core difference is that the Swift Vote guys stories check out.
What else kills CBSes credibility is the time it took for them to admit they were duped. They stood by a story that was PROVEN wrong.
An example of what could have gone the other way was the story about Kerry having an affair. This was substanciated by numerous sources, but when fully checked out it was not true. Ever wonder why no major news organization ran with it?
Yes Jon does show "some" liberals, but the vast percentage is attacks on concervatives.
He has even gone as far as openly supporting one candidate. Do you honestly believe that someone who is openly supporting a candidate and knows the demographics of his audience to be unbiased?
Now also look at the people the daily show has had as "political satirest" and see where they lean. Do you see a trend here?
You do not take in to account the fact that the large inefficiency of the government. Also you ASSUME that the government will do what you say with the tax revenue.
So if you want to live in a socialist society then move to one. There are a lot of them to choose from. Also you can always give more to the government if you want to. Please note that Kerry has NOT ever done that.
A document that was written in Microsoft Word in 197X.... That doesn't seem like all the facts. CBS was pissed that the swift vote guys had an impact on the election. They wanted to bash Bush and rushed the story. They did NOT check all their facts and found out that they were lied too.
Because of that they are now gun shy and will be extra careful for a short time.
Yes your point is that people that get 5-10 seconds of a news clip get more than those who don't. I agree.
Now I hope that we agree that the Daily show tries to make points more twards the left than the right. So those people that only get their "news" from that 5-20 seconds of clip John decides to air, agre getting a biased view.
Best part - Again, I didn't see the show. I was commenting about his viewpoint of that being the best part. You and I agree that it wasn't.
What do you expect on Crossfire - I have not watched it in years, but I expect to see both parties arguing their point. I expect this is the same show today it was then. Yes both will have their spin on it, and yes both try hard to voice their parties opinon. You call both idiots. I cannot comment on that because I have not watched it in years. Do you see the irony of the Daily show that take pot shots mostly at the Republican party, but also at the Democratic party, and then saying crossfire is bad for America? Umm Jon (sorry for spelling it John before), this is exactly what you do. You constantly try and make the politicians out to be fools or evil people by showing 10-20 seconds of them in a clip. You just do it in humourous way.
Journalist VS Comedian - At what point do you say that the person is biased then. Would you call Robin Williams biased? Rush Limbaugh? I say that his show has leaned tward one political party forever. He is just now comming out and admiting it. My main point about comedians, singers and actors is that they hide behind their "art" and then when someone calls them to the table by either; not purchase their product or tears apart their statements, they either cry sensorship or say that they are performing their craft. Yes they can express their opinion, but they need to be prepared to face what will happen. They can't have it both ways. Yet that is always what they want.
People take what he says as fact. - You miss the point. He shows a few seconds of something to get a laugh. Yes it may be funny but then when you go back and listen to the entire thing you realize that there was little or no irony, or you take in to account that something dramatic has changed since that person said what they said. His job is to get viewers to watch. His company is well aware of the market segment they are in and they don't mind "bending" the truth to get more viewers. Are they held accountable? Nope because they will say they are just doing commedy. They don't have to back anything up. Again as I mentioned above they hide behind their craft.
Liberal Bias - Iraqie Bob hugged the CNN reporter when he knew he couldn't lie any more, and was going back to his country. Ever wonder why? When the president landed in Iraq on Thanksgiving day and then left all the other networks were talking about it. What was CNN saying all day. That people in Iraq were offended that he didn't come over and talk to them.
Did you see the CBS report? Why do you believe they ran with that story? I believe that is was because they wanted it to be true.
Now look at what Nixon was kicked out of office for and then look at what Clinton did (not the sex thing, but purgering himself to a grand jury). If Bush lied to a grand jury under oath he would be gone in a second.
Calling someone a name - Well there are ways to try and make a point. One is to use foul language and insult the person (as you have done in your post, and John did on the air) and the other is to try and make your point. I would think that John would be sharp enough to counter a guy without having to stoop to calling him a name and personal insults. But then perhaps I overestimate him.
You can make more money working at a department store than a teacher. Wow that is news to me... of course you are not counting the fact that most teachers only work 9 months out of the year. Also, understand that if you "can" make more money in another position then DO IT.
Police - Do they get paid enough? I don't know. Are there people waiting in line to join the police force? In my area they are. So I would say the supply still does not meet demand. We could talk about the court system letting criminals go, but that is another story.
Federal deficit soaring - Yep. I would support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Would you? I would also support a FLAT national sales tax. Would you?
Millions of Americans without XYY. Wow I just got finished reading the consitution again (with the amendments) and didn't see anywhere in there about promised health insurance, cars, or computers. Do you honestly believe the government you just got finished saying can't balance a budget, will run a socialized medicine program any better? I can see it now... people with colds get in this line, people with broken bones get in this line, people that think you are going to die.... get in that long line over there, we may get to you in a week. Yep we would all have health insurance, but it would suck beyond belief if the government ran it. What exactly does the government run efficient anyway? Ummm nothing.
The FDA. Ah the great FDA. It's funny but I would bet that if it wasn't a government program and actually had to compete with other companies they would have more than enough money to do their job. Have you ever had to deal with the FDA? They make the IRS look like the most friendly people on the earth. Also please site an example of where the FDA outsourced their decision to approve or deny a drug. I have seen just the opposite of your example. I have seen some FDA people pissed off because they were not treated like God(s) and they shut down a manufacturing plant. Yes they did it because they were offended at the way they were treated. Yes they made up an excuse of why they did it, but it was just a lame excuse. Now that plant being shut down cost the company MILLIONS of dollars. What could that company do? Um well nothing. File a complaint? Yeah that is going to go far.
FTC been gutted.... then you talk more about the FDA. Are you serious about diet pills? You honestly believe that if taken as directed they will kill more people than say smoking? How many people died from taking afedra (mis-spelled)? How many died from taking like 10X the does? You and I will agree that the FDA needs to do all it can to protect it's people, but there has to be a much better way than what we are doing now. We pay too much, they are not accountable for mistakes and there is no competition to help them become more efficient.
I also can keep going also. I do believe you an I could find some middle ground though. 1. Pass a balanced budget amendment. 2. Pass a flax national sales tax. 3. Move tax day to Oct 20th.
If we agree on those two items, then we could better discuss on how to spend the money and EVERYONE would clearly see how raising taxes would effect them.
Some other issues that are hot buttons, that you and I would probably agree on. 1. Term limits for all politicians. 2. Term limits for judges. 3. The ability to sue HMO's. 4. When if life created and when is life a citizen?
I wish your points were true, but I have constant discussions with 18-25 year olds that quote his show and use it to base their opinion of the Republican party.
Specifically what they say is stuff like this.
ABC guy is an idiot because he said this then he said that. I saw the clip on the Daily Show. I then say "Are you getting all your facts from the daily show?". They always say no, but then never have an anwer to were else they get them.
Now realize that my main point is that these political satires are ok, and I do find them funny, but they can't have it both ways. They can't say they are just comedians and then spend 80% of their material bashing one political party. Then go on a show and bash the commentators there for being biased politically. At least they don't hide it.
If you believe that he only now "seems to be leaning left" then you are blind.
Yes he might take some jabs at Kerry, but to compare that to his attacks on the Republicans and say that is equal is like saying CBS made an honest mistake.
I didn't see the show, but that was the "best" part?
Let's see, a political show with both a liberal and a conservative on it. What do you think you are going to get?
Now with Stewarts show, they think they are getting a small break from their lives and a chance to laugh. What do they really get? John's political viewpoints hidden in jokes.
So I guess, given your viewpoint if someone can sing or make a joke then they can make constant political statements, without being challenged.
Lastly, I just want to say that there are a small number of people who take their "news" from Johns show. They take what he says as fact. Most are younger (18-25) year olds, that will have their eyes opened when they get their first "real" paycheck and see how much is taken out in federal and state taxes.... Yes they are ignorant of the fact that he follows another "satire" show, because they don't watch that other show. They tune in to his show and take it as news.
What I find funny is that his political views and the network he just attacked are one in the same.
It was also mentioned that he made personal attacks on one of the people. Ummm yeah that is a way to get your point across John. Perhaps you should go talk to that insult dog....
We don't need another form of energy? We can just conserve and we will have enough?
I can see the power company becoming like the Soup Nazi now and saying "No Power for YOU!" when you want turn on a light.
Come on now, give us specifics. Given that your power use in the U.S. has gone up almost EVERY single year for the last few decades, how much would we have to "conserve". What you are really saying is that the U.S. citizens should go with significantly less electricity than they do now. I would like to see some specifics on what our current rate of power is, and how you would mandate this conservation. Ahhh there is government getting involved in our life with another mandate/law. It looks like the Green Party isn't exactly about less government regulations....
Also on our election process. Your suggested voteing method would also be racest. It would descriminate against white rural americans. The exact places you are trying to protect. Places like most of middle America. In your system someone could win NewYork, California, Chicago and perhaps a few other States/Cities and win the election. A candidate wouldn't give a rats ass about Montana, Indiana, Ohio, etc. They do now. Granted they care more about California than Ohio, but in our current system Ohio is currently getting some serious attention. So when the people of California and New York (and the city of Chicago) use up all their natural resources and want to put their trash in say.... Montana, Montana will little say. Yes they would stop it for a short while, but when the national election took place they would have almost no say. This is exactly why we have the current system. It is also exactly why each state has a number of congressmen set to their population, but have TWO senators. It does give those with more people a little more power, but balances it out in the senate.
Lastly I would like to know:
At what point the green party considers a unborn child to be a citizen?
If you believe that North Koria is a serious threat to the U.S. and you have exhausted all diplomatic processes, would you use force to remove that threat?
In the current war in Iraq, what would be your plan? What would you consider a successful ending?
Would you raise taxes on any Americans? Would you lower them? What is your view of a flat tax?
What is your view on schools and businesses being forced to hire/admit certain races of people.
What is your view of software development being done in India and sent to the U.S.? What is your view of free trade?
Would you increase or decrease the size of our armed services?
Given the Greens party view of the environment. One can assume that if elected you would impose significantly higher EPA standards. Those companies are currently moving some of their work to Mexico because of their lack of an EPA. How would you solve this problem?
Ok as I mentioned in another post,.NET or.NOT is NOT called Java. So I as a developer can develop for Java or.NET. That is a HUGE difference between Microsoft haveing a "JAVA" and Sun having one. I as a developer was almost forced many times to write to Microsofts JVM because it was "included" in all the desktops". The best thing in the world that happened was that Microsoft abandoned, included, abandoned and then included a JVM. That, and Sun wrote a decent installer for Windows, although it should not require admin privs for install...
Being a Java developer, I can tell you that I am told to "target Windows" and make sure that the application runs well on Windows first, but all of our software runs well on almost every platform out there. This will NEVER be possible with.NET. and yes I know about Mono. In my opinion if you go with.NET you are locked in to Microsoft, yes you "might" be able to get some C# apps to run on Linux, but it will NEVER be a replacement for all of.NET (SQL server, GUI etc) The same cannot be said with Java and Sun.
This is simply not true. The 10G installation stops you if you are not running either SuSe Enterprise OR RedHat Enterprise or one more (can't remember).
Heck even their fricking Internet Developer Suite checks now. Yes you can run something like white box linux and get around it, but the way I see it Novell is saying: "We want you to port your apps to SuSe Enterprise only".
I like Oracle, and understand why they are doing but they should pick at least one or two more distros that are free (say like fedora, debian, or one of the low cost ones and support it.
To say they can't would be incorrect they fully supported RedHat 7.1. The more I think about this the more angry I get with Oracle.... Even their development tools (Jdeveloper), written in Java will not install on anything but Enterprise versions of Linux. WTF!!!! It is a developer tool, not a freaking database!
What the heck are you talking about. Currently every new java program will start a new JVM. So if I want to launch two versions of Jdevelper, it will load "the vendors supplied jvm" two times. However for a lot of programs the ~5-16MB of RAM needed for the JVM isn't that big of a deal.
As to the parent. SWING is not slow. You don't know what you are talking about. Your statement was accurate 5 years ago, but not today.
And that he changes the name of the same character three different times on two pages.
He was called xxxx but the elven name was yyyy and he later way called zzzz. Oh and then there would be three characters named something like xxxy xxxz xxyx. I found myself having to reference back all the time. Still a good book though.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure where you get she admitted the words were real. Please provide a link (non CNN or CBS).
:-) Oh yeah, that wasn't the case... but the liberals kept saying it was. Was there any WBD's?? None found yet, but three different intelligence agencies said he had them. Was it because Saddam had over 10 years to comply with U.N. sanctions and under the threat of war he was held to comply, but didn't. Saddam constantly kicked out U.N. inspectors and thought he was developing a WMD program. Thank God his own people were lieing to him. I ask you. Would the sanctions ever have worked? At what point do you use force? 20 years 30 years 50 years? France admitted that they would NEVER approve the use of force, yet the signed the sanction that said Saddam must comply or face the threat of war.
They have talked to many people about this and nobody without a link to a political party can prove one way or the other. The commanding officers family have even gone on record as saying that the words used in the document would never have come from their relative. Even other military people have looked at it and said it was a fake based off of just the words.
CBS now admits they were taken to the cleaners.
You mention Clinton. Who was offered Bin Ladden and didn't take him? I will not blame him for that mistake, because hind site is almost 20/20.
You have an issue with him and his view on gay marrage. You and I disgree there also. That is another conversation though. If the judges in America would not try and create law but rule on it, this would not be an issue. You do realize that near 70% of the people in the U.S. don't support gay marrage? What exactly is Kerry's position on Gay marrage? Being a Catholic, people should know.... ahhh but he is in a trap there. Catholics believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE and is morally wrong. What does he believe?
Why are we in Iraq? It was for Oil remember
Even Kerry (on an even day) admits that he would have done the same thing.
If you love America there are probably reasons to like one candidate over another but here are some questions to ask.
1. Who would do a better job of protecting America?
2. Who would be more likely to turn American troops over to U.N. control?
3. At what point does life begin?
4. Is a socialized medical system good for America?
5. Is raising taxes going to promote more jobs going overseas?
6. Which candidate is more likely to protect the 2nd Amendment?
7. Which candidate is more likely to protect marrage?
8. Which candidate is more likely to raise taxes on the middle class?
I have never said that he only picks on republicans. My two points about his show are as follows:
1. He shows 10-20second clips to make the political person look like an ass. Yet he rips on crossfire for "hurting amercia".
2. He and his employees are liberal and as such focus a larger percentage of their attacks on concervatives.
I(We, my people). I am not sure what the heck you are talking about. Give an inch? If Bush purgured himself to a grand jury he would be out of office. Do you honestly believe that the party of Jessy Jackson, Al Sharpton and Julia Carson is the party of facts?
Republicans have destroyed credibility? Like him or not, Bush does not change his views often. You know what you are getting with him. This lends to his credibility. Now the Democrats have some issues. You can't support the war one week and not the next then change again to support it. You cannot say that you are a Catholic and then promote pro choice.
However, to get back to my main point.
Jon Steward saying crossfire is bad for America is a bit or an irony when he himself constantly tries to make politicians look like idiots.
So your points.
John Steward is openly supporting one political party (not a candidate)
His fellow employees openly support one political party.
But somehow this has no effect on his show... yeah right.
Am I ignoring any points... No. The document was proven a fake. It was the cornerstone of the argument. When it falls so does the rest. Then the questions MUST be turned to why did CBS run with the story.
Yes John Kerry is a decorated war hero. Now isn't it fair that the people that served with him, who have been arguing with him since the 1970's (not just right now) have their say. Also the guy who said there was no firefight has an acceptable answer. One bullet does not count as a "firefight" to some. To others it does. Doesn't it seem strange to you that the vast majority of people that have served with John Kerry side with the Swift Vote guys? Now because Kerry has focused a large part of his campain on his service in Vietnamn, it is only fair that the people he served with be heard.
The CBS story has been proven false. I don't know why you find this so hard to accept. Again, the cornerstone of their "facts" was proven to be fake. Now when checked further the people they got their facts from have some serious credibility issues. Given that CBS will not fully disclose their sources, we cannot know the real truth of the story. Doesn't that seem odd to you? During the final days of an election a major news organization can run a anti Bush add errr story and then hide behind their "sources". That sounds more like the Enquirer or Star, not a major news orgainization.
The document has been 100% proven to be false. It was a poor hoax and a hope to fool people like you in to believing it. It backfired on them and will probably be one of the reasons Bush wins the election. At a minimum it will perminately damage Dan's career at CBS.
Even he admitted that if he would have been the one to gather the information on the story he would NOT have ran with it. It could not be proven one way or the other.
Your zealorty is blinding you. Do I think Bush got preferred treatment during vietnamn? YES!!!! Did Kerry? YES!!!! Does Bush use his service to further his political career? Not really. Has Kerry used it to further his? Yes. If you look at Kerry's voteing record you will see that he is anything but pro military. He has consistantly been against it. He is not stupid though, and knowing that his record will kill him with our former and current armed service people he needed to promote his military career. Unfortunately for him that career has many sides to it. The John Kerry who earned metals in war and the one who "threw them away". So Kerry needs the military vote in a major way to win some key states. He pushed his military service and it backfired on him. Some people were angry at this (like you) and decided to go on the attack against Bush. Those people got sucked in on a story that was not true. Could parts of it be true? We will never know because once the foundation is found out to be a lie the rest cannot and should not be taken seriously.
Umm, the core document that was presented was PROVEN to be a fake. That is far from trivial. The point is that CBS WANTED to believe that the document and story was real. Why? I believe that there are two main reasons for this.
1. They, and every news organization want the election to be close. They will get more viewers if it is close.
2. They were angry that the Swift Vote ads were and are working against Kerry. They thought by running a negative ad errr news story against Bush it would even things out. The core difference is that the Swift Vote guys stories check out.
What else kills CBSes credibility is the time it took for them to admit they were duped. They stood by a story that was PROVEN wrong.
An example of what could have gone the other way was the story about Kerry having an affair. This was substanciated by numerous sources, but when fully checked out it was not true. Ever wonder why no major news organization ran with it?
Yes Jon does show "some" liberals, but the vast percentage is attacks on concervatives.
He has even gone as far as openly supporting one candidate. Do you honestly believe that someone who is openly supporting a candidate and knows the demographics of his audience to be unbiased?
Now also look at the people the daily show has had as "political satirest" and see where they lean. Do you see a trend here?
The senate is split about 50 50
The house is barely Republican
Yes the president is Republican.
Have you ever watched someone like say Julia Carson, Ted Kennedy or like give a talk? You could make a show out of that.
Actually No.
You do not take in to account the fact that the large inefficiency of the government. Also you ASSUME that the government will do what you say with the tax revenue.
So if you want to live in a socialist society then move to one. There are a lot of them to choose from. Also you can always give more to the government if you want to. Please note that Kerry has NOT ever done that.
A document that was written in Microsoft Word in 197X .... That doesn't seem like all the facts. CBS was pissed that the swift vote guys had an impact on the election. They wanted to bash Bush and rushed the story. They did NOT check all their facts and found out that they were lied too.
Because of that they are now gun shy and will be extra careful for a short time.
You reference CNN....
Yes your point is that people that get 5-10 seconds of a news clip get more than those who don't. I agree.
Now I hope that we agree that the Daily show tries to make points more twards the left than the right. So those people that only get their "news" from that 5-20 seconds of clip John decides to air, agre getting a biased view.
I will try and your points.
Best part - Again, I didn't see the show. I was commenting about his viewpoint of that being the best part. You and I agree that it wasn't.
What do you expect on Crossfire - I have not watched it in years, but I expect to see both parties arguing their point. I expect this is the same show today it was then. Yes both will have their spin on it, and yes both try hard to voice their parties opinon. You call both idiots. I cannot comment on that because I have not watched it in years. Do you see the irony of the Daily show that take pot shots mostly at the Republican party, but also at the Democratic party, and then saying crossfire is bad for America? Umm Jon (sorry for spelling it John before), this is exactly what you do. You constantly try and make the politicians out to be fools or evil people by showing 10-20 seconds of them in a clip. You just do it in humourous way.
Journalist VS Comedian - At what point do you say that the person is biased then. Would you call Robin Williams biased? Rush Limbaugh? I say that his show has leaned tward one political party forever. He is just now comming out and admiting it. My main point about comedians, singers and actors is that they hide behind their "art" and then when someone calls them to the table by either; not purchase their product or tears apart their statements, they either cry sensorship or say that they are performing their craft. Yes they can express their opinion, but they need to be prepared to face what will happen. They can't have it both ways. Yet that is always what they want.
People take what he says as fact. - You miss the point. He shows a few seconds of something to get a laugh. Yes it may be funny but then when you go back and listen to the entire thing you realize that there was little or no irony, or you take in to account that something dramatic has changed since that person said what they said. His job is to get viewers to watch. His company is well aware of the market segment they are in and they don't mind "bending" the truth to get more viewers. Are they held accountable? Nope because they will say they are just doing commedy. They don't have to back anything up. Again as I mentioned above they hide behind their craft.
Liberal Bias -
Iraqie Bob hugged the CNN reporter when he knew he couldn't lie any more, and was going back to his country. Ever wonder why? When the president landed in Iraq on Thanksgiving day and then left all the other networks were talking about it. What was CNN saying all day. That people in Iraq were offended that he didn't come over and talk to them.
Did you see the CBS report? Why do you believe they ran with that story? I believe that is was because they wanted it to be true.
Now look at what Nixon was kicked out of office for and then look at what Clinton did (not the sex thing, but purgering himself to a grand jury). If Bush lied to a grand jury under oath he would be gone in a second.
Calling someone a name - Well there are ways to try and make a point. One is to use foul language and insult the person (as you have done in your post, and John did on the air) and the other is to try and make your point. I would think that John would be sharp enough to counter a guy without having to stoop to calling him a name and personal insults. But then perhaps I overestimate him.
You can make more money working at a department store than a teacher. Wow that is news to me... of course you are not counting the fact that most teachers only work 9 months out of the year. Also, understand that if you "can" make more money in another position then DO IT.
Police - Do they get paid enough? I don't know. Are there people waiting in line to join the police force? In my area they are. So I would say the supply still does not meet demand. We could talk about the court system letting criminals go, but that is another story.
Federal deficit soaring - Yep. I would support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Would you? I would also support a FLAT national sales tax. Would you?
Millions of Americans without XYY. Wow I just got finished reading the consitution again (with the amendments) and didn't see anywhere in there about promised health insurance, cars, or computers. Do you honestly believe the government you just got finished saying can't balance a budget, will run a socialized medicine program any better? I can see it now... people with colds get in this line, people with broken bones get in this line, people that think you are going to die.... get in that long line over there, we may get to you in a week. Yep we would all have health insurance, but it would suck beyond belief if the government ran it. What exactly does the government run efficient anyway? Ummm nothing.
The FDA. Ah the great FDA. It's funny but I would bet that if it wasn't a government program and actually had to compete with other companies they would have more than enough money to do their job. Have you ever had to deal with the FDA? They make the IRS look like the most friendly people on the earth. Also please site an example of where the FDA outsourced their decision to approve or deny a drug. I have seen just the opposite of your example. I have seen some FDA people pissed off because they were not treated like God(s) and they shut down a manufacturing plant. Yes they did it because they were offended at the way they were treated. Yes they made up an excuse of why they did it, but it was just a lame excuse. Now that plant being shut down cost the company MILLIONS of dollars. What could that company do? Um well nothing. File a complaint? Yeah that is going to go far.
FTC been gutted.... then you talk more about the FDA. Are you serious about diet pills? You honestly believe that if taken as directed they will kill more people than say smoking? How many people died from taking afedra (mis-spelled)? How many died from taking like 10X the does? You and I will agree that the FDA needs to do all it can to protect it's people, but there has to be a much better way than what we are doing now. We pay too much, they are not accountable for mistakes and there is no competition to help them become more efficient.
I also can keep going also. I do believe you an I could find some middle ground though.
1. Pass a balanced budget amendment.
2. Pass a flax national sales tax.
3. Move tax day to Oct 20th.
If we agree on those two items, then we could better discuss on how to spend the money and EVERYONE would clearly see how raising taxes would effect them.
Some other issues that are hot buttons, that you and I would probably agree on.
1. Term limits for all politicians.
2. Term limits for judges.
3. The ability to sue HMO's.
4. When if life created and when is life a citizen?
I wish your points were true, but I have constant discussions with 18-25 year olds that quote his show and use it to base their opinion of the Republican party.
Specifically what they say is stuff like this.
ABC guy is an idiot because he said this then he said that. I saw the clip on the Daily Show. I then say "Are you getting all your facts from the daily show?". They always say no, but then never have an anwer to were else they get them.
Now realize that my main point is that these political satires are ok, and I do find them funny, but they can't have it both ways. They can't say they are just comedians and then spend 80% of their material bashing one political party. Then go on a show and bash the commentators there for being biased politically. At least they don't hide it.
Um yeah and CBS wasn't going after Bush either...
Do you remember Iraqie Bob hugging the CNN reporter..
Yes they may be trying to change their ways but they have a long long way to go just to get up to where CBS is. Now we all know where CBS leans...
If you believe that he only now "seems to be leaning left" then you are blind.
Yes he might take some jabs at Kerry, but to compare that to his attacks on the Republicans and say that is equal is like saying CBS made an honest mistake.
I didn't see the show, but that was the "best" part?
Let's see, a political show with both a liberal and a conservative on it. What do you think you are going to get?
Now with Stewarts show, they think they are getting a small break from their lives and a chance to laugh. What do they really get? John's political viewpoints hidden in jokes.
So I guess, given your viewpoint if someone can sing or make a joke then they can make constant political statements, without being challenged.
Lastly, I just want to say that there are a small number of people who take their "news" from Johns show. They take what he says as fact. Most are younger (18-25) year olds, that will have their eyes opened when they get their first "real" paycheck and see how much is taken out in federal and state taxes.... Yes they are ignorant of the fact that he follows another "satire" show, because they don't watch that other show. They tune in to his show and take it as news.
What I find funny is that his political views and the network he just attacked are one in the same.
It was also mentioned that he made personal attacks on one of the people. Ummm yeah that is a way to get your point across John. Perhaps you should go talk to that insult dog....
We don't need another form of energy? We can just conserve and we will have enough?
I can see the power company becoming like the Soup Nazi now and saying "No Power for YOU!" when you want turn on a light.
Come on now, give us specifics. Given that your power use in the U.S. has gone up almost EVERY single year for the last few decades, how much would we have to "conserve". What you are really saying is that the U.S. citizens should go with significantly less electricity than they do now. I would like to see some specifics on what our current rate of power is, and how you would mandate this conservation. Ahhh there is government getting involved in our life with another mandate/law. It looks like the Green Party isn't exactly about less government regulations....
Also on our election process. Your suggested voteing method would also be racest. It would descriminate against white rural americans. The exact places you are trying to protect. Places like most of middle America. In your system someone could win NewYork, California, Chicago and perhaps a few other States/Cities and win the election. A candidate wouldn't give a rats ass about Montana, Indiana, Ohio, etc. They do now. Granted they care more about California than Ohio, but in our current system Ohio is currently getting some serious attention. So when the people of California and New York (and the city of Chicago) use up all their natural resources and want to put their trash in say.... Montana, Montana will little say. Yes they would stop it for a short while, but when the national election took place they would have almost no say. This is exactly why we have the current system. It is also exactly why each state has a number of congressmen set to their population, but have TWO senators. It does give those with more people a little more power, but balances it out in the senate.
Lastly I would like to know:
At what point the green party considers a unborn child to be a citizen?
If you believe that North Koria is a serious threat to the U.S. and you have exhausted all diplomatic processes, would you use force to remove that threat?
In the current war in Iraq, what would be your plan? What would you consider a successful ending?
Would you raise taxes on any Americans? Would you lower them? What is your view of a flat tax?
What is your view on schools and businesses being forced to hire/admit certain races of people.
What is your view of software development being done in India and sent to the U.S.? What is your view of free trade?
Would you increase or decrease the size of our armed services?
Given the Greens party view of the environment. One can assume that if elected you would impose significantly higher EPA standards. Those companies are currently moving some of their work to Mexico because of their lack of an EPA. How would you solve this problem?
Ok as I mentioned in another post, .NET or .NOT is NOT called Java. So I as a developer can develop for Java or .NET. That is a HUGE difference between Microsoft haveing a "JAVA" and Sun having one. I as a developer was almost forced many times to write to Microsofts JVM because it was "included" in all the desktops". The best thing in the world that happened was that Microsoft abandoned, included, abandoned and then included a JVM. That, and Sun wrote a decent installer for Windows, although it should not require admin privs for install...
.NET. and yes I know about Mono. In my opinion if you go with .NET you are locked in to Microsoft, yes you "might" be able to get some C# apps to run on Linux, but it will NEVER be a replacement for all of .NET (SQL server, GUI etc) The same cannot be said with Java and Sun.
Being a Java developer, I can tell you that I am told to "target Windows" and make sure that the application runs well on Windows first, but all of our software runs well on almost every platform out there. This will NEVER be possible with
It is called .NET not Java. Big difference, and you just made his point for him.
This is simply not true. The 10G installation stops you if you are not running either SuSe Enterprise OR RedHat Enterprise or one more (can't remember).
Heck even their fricking Internet Developer Suite checks now. Yes you can run something like white box linux and get around it, but the way I see it Novell is saying:
"We want you to port your apps to SuSe Enterprise only".
I like Oracle, and understand why they are doing but they should pick at least one or two more distros that are free (say like fedora, debian, or one of the low cost ones and support it.
To say they can't would be incorrect they fully supported RedHat 7.1. The more I think about this the more angry I get with Oracle.... Even their development tools (Jdeveloper), written in Java will not install on anything but Enterprise versions of Linux. WTF!!!! It is a developer tool, not a freaking database!
So you make up around less than 1% of the desktop market. The example you gave is around 99.999% of the desktop world.
Yet Intel still holds a lions share of the market. Weird.
Also if you do video encoding Intel beats AMD.
The same argument can and is used to allow all people to carry firearms.
It is an equalizer. It makes a 70 year old lady equal to an 18 year old male that is in great physical shape.
however just because both sides are equal doesn't mean that the 70 year old lady should start killing people just because they pissed her off.
What the heck are you talking about. Currently every new java program will start a new JVM. So if I want to launch two versions of Jdevelper, it will load "the vendors supplied jvm" two times. However for a lot of programs the ~5-16MB of RAM needed for the JVM isn't that big of a deal.
As to the parent. SWING is not slow. You don't know what you are talking about. Your statement was accurate 5 years ago, but not today.
And that he changes the name of the same character three different times on two pages.
He was called xxxx but the elven name was yyyy and he later way called zzzz. Oh and then there would be three characters named something like xxxy xxxz xxyx. I found myself having to reference back all the time. Still a good book though.
Good book but man oh man a tough read.
It's a tough read.
Man that is the understatement of the year.
I would add that a Wizard was not a human, but an imortal like the elves.