I completely agree that this is about rational vs. irrational.
That said, I do think the GOP has encouraged irrationality among a large proportion of it's perceived base for years, with fearmongering, hatred and xenophobia, in order to get fired-up voters. And now they are justly suffering from the results of this cynical strategy. It's just a shame that the rest of the country is being hurt by this too.
Well that's the bind we're in from the center towards the Left, isn't it? Just because there are two sides which may be in the wrong, doesn't automatically mean they're equally wrong. Yet somehow in most of the media Democratic party molehills are equated to Republican mountains.
I mean, can you imagine **how insane** a Demcoratic party candidate would have to be, to merely equal Christine O'Donnell?? Or how unqualified and incapable a VP candidate would have to be, to equal Sarah Palin? Or how straight-up mendacious to come near Newt Gingrich?
But in the long-term, I do think reason equals out - and the Democratic party will do themselves no favors trying to equal the crazy of the extreme right-wing. Not even in the short term. This call for sanity is a good thing for America, even though the Democratic party is far less guilty of it than the Republican party.
And also, yes the Congress holds the purse strings in that the President can't get money *without* a bill from Congress. But a President can still say no to the money they choose to give, and try to force them to come up with a more acceptable plan.
To sum up, the President can say "yes" or "no" to the money Congress allocates - he just can't Constitutionally get money from anywhere else.
Sure, for a budget resolution. But that's not a *budget*, aka spending bill - that's just an internal resolution for Congress **about** how they write budgets into bills.
A a budget is a spending bill and thus is a bill like any other, which requires the President's signature to become a law.
So the surplus you are claiming was Clinton's actually belongs to the Congress that was in session then.
No, that's not true. Clinton deserves the credit because first he a) worked with the Democratic House to budget Clinton's own priorities (including a very intentional program that was the opposite of the GOP's "supply side economics" aka "Voodoo economics" - and then b) when the GOP took back the House, Clinton **vetoed** the Republican budget. Resulting in a government shutdown, where Clinton didn't budge until the GOP caved to public pressure and produced a budget that was acceptable to hClinton's priorities.
Actually Clinton's fighting off of Republican policies was what resulted in the Budget surplus - he resisted the Republican House and Senate, to the point of actually vetoing their budget and shutting down the government.
If the Republicans would have had their way, they would have reduced taxes and increased the deficit, when instead Clinton's policies of taxing the wealthy and **investing** those funds in the poor and middle class gave us the first budget surplus in decades.
But we don't have to be screwed out of Social Security. And we almost certainly won't be, if we just make extremely minor changes.
And that's one of the worse effects of Fox's constant screaming truthiness: Social Security not only doesn't have to go "bankrupt" - even if nothing is done, it won't start costing more than it has available until 2041 **at the earliest** - at which point it will STILL be paying out. It'll just be at say 90% instead of 100%.
And again, that's without incredibly easy things to do like, say, increasing the amount businesses pay in by 1/2 of a percentage point.
Yeah. Of course, except when the Democrats are in control of Congress and the Senate. Then somehow cause and effect can become reversed, and the Democrats become responsible for messes caused by the *previous* GOP President AND Congress.
Oh, and Clinton also got us in and out of Kosovo and Bosnia without a single American soldier dying in combat. Not. One. But conservatives still hold onto the notion that Liberals are willing to callously disregard the lives of soldiers. Woo.
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.
Personally I'm interested to see how the tea-party responds when they realize cutting government size means cutting programs you like.
Exactly. And I expect the response will be just as much insensate rage. Because The Tea Party is basically an emotional backlash with no logical consistency. It's a concentration of all the reactionary elements of the Republican party, with much less of the business elements that have
kept the GOP from going completely off the cliff.
That's exactly what makes Tea Party candidates so unelectable - and what will, if they ever do get into office, crash and burn in the space of a single term. Their best hope would be to pull a Palin and quit early, rather than face any strong decisions which might cause the Tea Partiers painful cognitive dissonance.
Honestly I think this whole Tea Party phenom is a bunch of ginned-up rage on the part of corporations, taking advantage of the real fear of people who unfortunately really trust Fox News, Limbaugh and Beck. And when it doesn't work, I can only hope the chickens will come back and roost. By which I mean, shit all over them.
It won't happen en masse, because most Fox/Beck/Limbaugh fans are choosing emotional comfort over logic anyway - but I can dream.
Clearly from your statements, you disagree with Jon Stewart and Colbert's politics. Which is your privilege. However it does seem clear to me that's what's driving you.
But this statement is pretty ridiculous:
"Their audience aren't concerned about things like big government because most of them pay no taxes. "
Got any demographics for that assumption?
But let's say that's true. Do you know how *hard* this economy is hitting those just out of high school, or college? Do you think the younger *want* to have a hard future? This is possibly the worst job market in decades. If they thought Big Government was the problem, they'd be all about getting Small Government to happen.
The people you are talking about may just have a better understanding of a) actual economics and b) history than you do - they know that:
a) government can and should step in to help American citizens in a time of economic crisis, when banks and corporations won't and
b) despite a lot of promises, no conservative President has **ever** brought America smaller government anyway
But you know, that's just a bunch of facts-y, head-y stuff. Go with your gut.
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.
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.
Yeah, those guys are enormous douchbags, too. What's your point?
[snark]Don't you know that if someone does something awful and stupid you disagree with, that *automatically* means the awful, stupid behavior you agree with was okay? [/snark]
It's quite right of them to try this, of course. But I disagree with some of these implications. Individual academic experts may be less likely to be wrong about specific facts - but may also miss relevant facts due to the increasing amount of specialization in all fields of knowledge.
Whereas, ideally, crowds picking over and adding to articles means all the verifiable information from many different sources stay, and all the bad information goes.
I think this restriction of information to academics only also shows a deeper distrust and actual elitism in general. They have their reasons, and no doubt many of them are justified. But a fearfulness of opening the editing to the public implies that they don't trust the public to recognize facts and evidence - an opinion which, on the whole, I disagree with.
If things were otherwise, Nature's study of Wikipedia would have shown it to be far less accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica - or even more accurate, depending on how you compare the articles.
Probably. That other 2/3 is mostly the servant class for the top 1/3.
As a corrollary, the success of art galleries and sales for broke artists is almost dependent on the success of the stock market - when brokers are rolling in dough, they buy art. When they aren't, artists go hungry.
Slashdot Mirror
The anger and fear that corporations will take over is silly.
I agree - because they already have taken over. They're just solidifying their power.
I completely agree that this is about rational vs. irrational.
That said, I do think the GOP has encouraged irrationality among a large proportion of it's perceived base for years, with fearmongering, hatred and xenophobia, in order to get fired-up voters. And now they are justly suffering from the results of this cynical strategy. It's just a shame that the rest of the country is being hurt by this too.
Well that's the bind we're in from the center towards the Left, isn't it? Just because there are two sides which may be in the wrong, doesn't automatically mean they're equally wrong. Yet somehow in most of the media Democratic party molehills are equated to Republican mountains.
I mean, can you imagine **how insane** a Demcoratic party candidate would have to be, to merely equal Christine O'Donnell?? Or how unqualified and incapable a VP candidate would have to be, to equal Sarah Palin? Or how straight-up mendacious to come near Newt Gingrich?
But in the long-term, I do think reason equals out - and the Democratic party will do themselves no favors trying to equal the crazy of the extreme right-wing. Not even in the short term. This call for sanity is a good thing for America, even though the Democratic party is far less guilty of it than the Republican party.
And also, yes the Congress holds the purse strings in that the President can't get money *without* a bill from Congress. But a President can still say no to the money they choose to give, and try to force them to come up with a more acceptable plan.
To sum up, the President can say "yes" or "no" to the money Congress allocates - he just can't Constitutionally get money from anywhere else.
Sure, for a budget resolution. But that's not a *budget*, aka spending bill - that's just an internal resolution for Congress **about** how they write budgets into bills.
A a budget is a spending bill and thus is a bill like any other, which requires the President's signature to become a law.
Yes, you're right. A "budget resolution" is a separate matter, but a spending bill requires the President's approval just like any other bill.
And in fact, here's Bill Clinton's comments on the GOP spending bill as he vetoed it - forcing the GOP to come back with a bill he would approve:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-14/transcripts/clinton.html
So the surplus you are claiming was Clinton's actually belongs to the Congress that was in session then.
No, that's not true. Clinton deserves the credit because first he a) worked with the Democratic House to budget Clinton's own priorities (including a very intentional program that was the opposite of the GOP's "supply side economics" aka "Voodoo economics" - and then b) when the GOP took back the House, Clinton **vetoed** the Republican budget. Resulting in a government shutdown, where Clinton didn't budge until the GOP caved to public pressure and produced a budget that was acceptable to hClinton's priorities.
Actually Clinton's fighting off of Republican policies was what resulted in the Budget surplus - he resisted the Republican House and Senate, to the point of actually vetoing their budget and shutting down the government.
If the Republicans would have had their way, they would have reduced taxes and increased the deficit, when instead Clinton's policies of taxing the wealthy and **investing** those funds in the poor and middle class gave us the first budget surplus in decades.
But we don't have to be screwed out of Social Security. And we almost certainly won't be, if we just make extremely minor changes.
And that's one of the worse effects of Fox's constant screaming truthiness: Social Security not only doesn't have to go "bankrupt" - even if nothing is done, it won't start costing more than it has available until 2041 **at the earliest** - at which point it will STILL be paying out. It'll just be at say 90% instead of 100%.
And again, that's without incredibly easy things to do like, say, increasing the amount businesses pay in by 1/2 of a percentage point.
Yeah. Of course, except when the Democrats are in control of Congress and the Senate. Then somehow cause and effect can become reversed, and the Democrats become responsible for messes caused by the *previous* GOP President AND Congress.
Same here. :/ If I was living on the East Coast, I would be getting there at 4 AM. Hell, I may do it anyway.
Tell me about it. Ffs.
Oh, and Clinton also got us in and out of Kosovo and Bosnia without a single American soldier dying in combat. Not. One. But conservatives still hold onto the notion that Liberals are willing to callously disregard the lives of soldiers. Woo.
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.
Personally I'm interested to see how the tea-party responds when they realize cutting government size means cutting programs you like.
Exactly. And I expect the response will be just as much insensate rage. Because The Tea Party is basically an emotional backlash with no logical consistency. It's a concentration of all the reactionary elements of the Republican party, with much less of the business elements that have kept the GOP from going completely off the cliff.
That's exactly what makes Tea Party candidates so unelectable - and what will, if they ever do get into office, crash and burn in the space of a single term. Their best hope would be to pull a Palin and quit early, rather than face any strong decisions which might cause the Tea Partiers painful cognitive dissonance.
Honestly I think this whole Tea Party phenom is a bunch of ginned-up rage on the part of corporations, taking advantage of the real fear of people who unfortunately really trust Fox News, Limbaugh and Beck. And when it doesn't work, I can only hope the chickens will come back and roost. By which I mean, shit all over them.
It won't happen en masse, because most Fox/Beck/Limbaugh fans are choosing emotional comfort over logic anyway - but I can dream.
Okay. We'll see.
I think it's quite likely that there will be more people than showed up to Beck's event - and if so it will be a fantastic victory against bullshit.
Clearly from your statements, you disagree with Jon Stewart and Colbert's politics. Which is your privilege. However it does seem clear to me that's what's driving you.
But this statement is pretty ridiculous:
"Their audience aren't concerned about things like big government because most of them pay no taxes. "
Got any demographics for that assumption?
But let's say that's true. Do you know how *hard* this economy is hitting those just out of high school, or college? Do you think the younger *want* to have a hard future? This is possibly the worst job market in decades. If they thought Big Government was the problem, they'd be all about getting Small Government to happen.
The people you are talking about may just have a better understanding of a) actual economics and b) history than you do - they know that:
a) government can and should step in to help American citizens in a time of economic crisis, when banks and corporations won't and
b) despite a lot of promises, no conservative President has **ever** brought America smaller government anyway
But you know, that's just a bunch of facts-y, head-y stuff. Go with your gut.
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.
And if this rally is bigger than Beck's fest, what will that mean?
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.
Yeah, those guys are enormous douchbags, too. What's your point? [snark]Don't you know that if someone does something awful and stupid you disagree with, that *automatically* means the awful, stupid behavior you agree with was okay? [/snark]
Why don't we next provide them with a map of our vital organs? Oh wait, they already have that.
It's quite right of them to try this, of course. But I disagree with some of these implications. Individual academic experts may be less likely to be wrong about specific facts - but may also miss relevant facts due to the increasing amount of specialization in all fields of knowledge.
Whereas, ideally, crowds picking over and adding to articles means all the verifiable information from many different sources stay, and all the bad information goes.
I think this restriction of information to academics only also shows a deeper distrust and actual elitism in general. They have their reasons, and no doubt many of them are justified. But a fearfulness of opening the editing to the public implies that they don't trust the public to recognize facts and evidence - an opinion which, on the whole, I disagree with.
If things were otherwise, Nature's study of Wikipedia would have shown it to be far less accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica - or even more accurate, depending on how you compare the articles.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Why not both? They both have killer robots too. Make war love, not (just) war.
If we're going to have killer robots from the future, can they at least look like the Terminator women and hopefully screw us to death?
Perhaps that's coming with the next Apple upgrade.
Probably. That other 2/3 is mostly the servant class for the top 1/3.
As a corrollary, the success of art galleries and sales for broke artists is almost dependent on the success of the stock market - when brokers are rolling in dough, they buy art. When they aren't, artists go hungry.