Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive, 10/30/10!
Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive
10/30/10
Yes! Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are both holding rallies at the in Washington DC in true satire fashion!
(Can you tell I'm excited?)
It looks like a ton of fun, I'm really torn about going. I love these guys. This could be a once in a lifetime chance, but I don't think I should spend the money getting there (plus I'd have to take off work and lose money to begin with, and I'm in school and probably will have school work to do....ugh!)
I thought I'd just make sure y'all were informed in case you do have the opportunity to go and want to.
Here
http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/
http://www.keepfearalive.com/I'll go, if I can swing it.
I think it is important that I attend this event.
I would love to go! What a hoot.
I fully intend to be there with the wife and kids. My son has a soccer game that day, and my daughter has the car wash, but I think this is more important. Plus, it will be fun.
The permit filed with the Park Police said 25K people are expected to attend, but these things can change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDZSXmfnDLo
Lets see how easy it is to take short clips of what a person says and turn them into a douchebag...sounds like a fun game to me!
I've always felt
like a racialist
sick
asshole
.
That's why you're not writing your paper about me. :p:
I'll
swing
Hey, this is fun.;)
P.S. I've never seen anyone so afraid of a comedian. Also, compared to O'Reilly/Beck/Coulter, Jon Stewart is Walter Cronkite.
Hey, this is fun.;)
P.S. I've never seen anyone so afraid of a comedian.
The KKK also got angry and nasty when people laughed at them. "White Flour!!!"
[FONT="]I'm kinda short on [/FONT]
[FONT="] cats [/FONT]
[FONT="]who will lick [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]assholes.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
If you would be willing to,
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]I'll choose the person who has the dirtiest[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
shit.
Yup, it sure is fun doing this.
Wow, you really don't get the point do you?
Here is the FULL interview with Jim Cramer that The Daily Show posted online for everyone to watch.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
The full interviews can't always be played at actual airing. But if you watch the actual interview rather than some chopped up youtube video of it, you'll see that Jon Stewart, as always, gave the guest due time to respond. Yes, Jon Stewart makes jokes as well, he's fucking comedian and makes this shit interesting.
You don't get the point. Jon Stewart is a pompous ass who makes holier than thou points when he is actually only a satirist trying to sound like he knows more than the people he attacks.
That point is not made by that shitty video.
Actually watch the damn videos. Especially starting on Part 3, about 6min in.
Part 3
Having an opinion does not make him a pompous ass. He is honest that is show is about the laughs for the most part, but it is a show about current events/news, there are gonna be some serious bits. IMHO, he treats his guests a lot more respectful than you see on actual news/commentary shows.
How is Stewart's infotainment any different than Limbaugh's? Just in style, not substance.
Although most people are watching Stewart for the comedy value, compared to those who listen to Rush for the editorial value, its interesting to note that Stewart attracts a more moderate/independent audience than Rush could ever hope to.
From here:A much younger one as well. I'd think Rush would have to be screaming louder and louder so that those still alive listening to him could hear.
How is Stewart's infotainment any different than Limbaugh's? Just in style, not substance.
Stewart is funny, Limbaugh is laughable.
How is Stewart's infotainment any different than Limbaugh's? Just in style, not substance.
I've seen just part of one Stewart show. I've heard pieces of a half dozen or so Limbaugh shows. So I'm not an expert by any means. But I bet if you put a hate-o-meter on both shows you'd see a wide difference.
Stewart is funny, Limbaugh is laughable.
Loved it. Pithy.
I agree Pete. Stewart is usually making fun of those people, like Rush and Glenn Beck, who use emotionally-charged (and often hateful) political rhetoric.
I wonder if they will have those posters of Palin painted to look like Hitler?
I've seen just part of one Stewart show. I've heard pieces of a half dozen or so Limbaugh shows. So I'm not an expert by any means. But I bet if you put a hate-o-meter on both shows you'd see a wide difference.
They're appealing to different audiences, but just opposite sides of the same coin imo. Limbaugh uses outrage, Stewart uses arrogance, both pretend to be telling the truth.
From Wiki:
Describing itself as a [COLOR="Red"]fake[/COLOR] news program, The Daily Show draws its comedy and satire from recent news stories, political figures, media organizations, and often, aspects of the show itself.
Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored in the high knowledge range, followed by Jim Lehrer's program at 53% and Bill O'Reilly's program at 51%, significantly higher than the 34% of network morning show viewers.
They're appealing to different audiences, but just opposite sides of the same coin imo. Limbaugh uses outrage, Stewart uses arrogance, both pretend to be telling the truth.
:thumb: I can't agree more. To hold Stewart up as something to emulate would be to hold up Rush as something to emulate. Both are asshats.
That point is not made by that shitty video.
I think it was.
They're appealing to different audiences, but just opposite sides of the same coin imo. Limbaugh uses outrage, Stewart uses arrogance, both pretend to be telling the truth.
I see what you did there Jinx...the outrage vs arrogance comparison. Truth is Jon is just a comic who mostly picks on the conservative side because for the last two decades they have provided much more fodder for comedy...they are just that much more ridiculously funny. I find it refreshing. The other side finds it arrogant.
mowethanpwetty
stabs peopwe wif fowks
Join Date: Sep 2006
Wocation: wittwe town (but not the wittwest) in texas
Posts: 1,757
Actuawwy watch the damn videos. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! Especiawwy stawting on Pawt 3, about 6min in, uh-hah-hah-hah.
Pawt 3
Having an opinion does not make him a pompous ass. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! He is honest that is show is about the waughs fow the most pawt, but it is a show about cuwwent events/news, thewe awe gonna be some sewious bits. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! IMHO, he tweats his guests a wot mowe wespectfuw than you see on actuaw news/commentawy shows. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!
__________________
"If you awe a hewmaphwodite, it is physicawwy impossibwe to be gay."
-Steven Cowbewt
Humans awe animaws. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!
What sepawates them fwom the othew species?
Dewusions of gwandeuw.
-Sundae
Wepubwicans: wowking fow govewnment smaww enough to fit inside youw bedwoom.
Wast edited by mowethanpwetty; 09-20-2010 at 09:10 AM.
mowethanpwetty
View Pubwic Pwofiwe Find Mowe Posts by mowethanpwetty
[CENTER] [LEFT] [LEFT]
09-20-2010, 09:12 AM #
17 jinx
Come on, cat.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Wocation: genewaw vicinity of Phiwadewphia awea
Posts: 6,952
[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
mowethanpwetty
stabs peopwe wif fowks
Join Date: Sep 2006
Wocation: wittwe town (but not the wittwest) in texas
Posts: 1,757
Actuawwy watch the damn videos. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! Especiawwy stawting on Pawt 3, about 6min in, uh-hah-hah-hah.
Pawt 3
Having an opinion does not make him a pompous ass. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! He is honest that is show is about the waughs fow the most pawt, but it is a show about cuwwent events/news, thewe awe gonna be some sewious bits. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! IMHO, he tweats his guests a wot mowe wespectfuw than you see on actuaw news/commentawy shows. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!
__________________
"If you awe a hewmaphwodite, it is physicawwy impossibwe to be gay."
-Steven Cowbewt
Humans awe animaws. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!
What sepawates them fwom the othew species?
Dewusions of gwandeuw.
-Sundae
Wepubwicans: wowking fow govewnment smaww enough to fit inside youw bedwoom.
Wast edited by mowethanpwetty; 09-20-2010 at 09:10 AM.
mowethanpwetty View Pubwic Pwofiwe Find Mowe Posts by mowethanpwetty
[CENTER] [LEFT] [LEFT] 09-20-2010, 09:12 AM #17 jinx
Come on, cat.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Wocation: genewaw vicinity of Phiwadewphia awea
Posts: 6,952
[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
WTF?
I don't think this thread was suppose to be funny but I'm laugh'n.
me too - that was a pretty funny post.
The best part is that video has been around for like a year+
and suddenly it seems to draw so much fire.
I see what you did there Jinx...the outrage vs arrogance comparison. Truth is Jon is just a comic who mostly picks on the conservative side because for the last two decades they have provided much more fodder for comedy...they are just that much more ridiculously funny. I find it refreshing. The other side finds it arrogant.
If'n you're not with us, you're against us, eh? Ironic.
What does he do that you view as arrogant?
His comedy style is almost entirely "Look at those morons doing stupid shit" and making a funny face. I'm not saying he's not funny, I'm just saying he's as funny as Rush is all fired up.
Do you also view "America's Funniest Home Videos" as arrogant?
Then what does he do that you view as arrogant? Making fun of people who do stupid stuff isn't apparently quite it.
Yes, it is.
You can disagree, but comparing americas funniest home videos is retarded. It's not political and it's laughing with, not at.
Stewart makes fun of both Republicans and Democrats. Probably why he has such a huge moderate base. His views tend to be moderate, there is NO moderation to Limbaugh. If he were the opposite of Limbaugh then he'd be purely wacko left since Limbaugh is a wacko right. Making fun of stupid shit in the media (all news programs altho primarily Fox) and politics does not make him arrogant. You're also completely forgetting about The Daily Show's writers, although Jon Stewart is the face, he is not the entirety of the show.
Rush Limbaugh is purported as a serious commentator, Jon Stewart says himself that he is JUST A COMEDIAN. How is that arrogant? He will also admit to mistakes, will admit he does not know everything, and that he could be wrong about a certain point. That is the opposite of arrogance.
What about other comedians? Is Bill Maher arrogant too? Lewis Black?
Or how about the only right-wing comedian out there- Dennis Miller. Is he arrogant too?
I prefer Louis CK to any of the above.
Funny how politically polarizing Stewart the comedian is.
IMHO, comparing Jon Stewart to Rush Limbaugh is retarded. Jon Stewart and Rush both use politics/current events for material for their show, but the mediums and presentation style are completely different. Jon Stewart and AFV both use comedy and slapstick, just different subject matter. So sure, you can compare those 2 shows just as well as Rush and Jon compare.
Which SIDE are you on if you don't like AFV?
How is that arrogant?
If you don't agree with what someone says, they must be arrogant, right?
Their audiences are very different generationally.
Does anyone really like AFV anymore? Hasn't youtube kinda usurped it anyway?
I guess there could still be old people who don't know much about youtube and watch AFV...
I prefer Louis CK to any of the above.
Funny how politically polarizing Stewart the comedian is.
My new favorite is
Greg Warren. I just saw him in Indy at the Bob and Tom Comedy All Star Tour. He does a really funny bit about 1 star people in 4 star hotels.
Jinx, my point is that I find that I don't care for right-wing comedians...
I find them
arrogant...I really hate Dennis Miller. (Actually his style comes off as hateful to me) So it just makes me wonder if that is why you dont like Stewarts political humor, because its not your politics.
eta: I use to like Dennis Miller.
Bill Maher is arrogant as all hell.
Dennis Miller seems arrogant but actually is not.
Jon Stewart is not arrogant.
Arrogance is one of the primary qualities of the character Rush Limbaugh has refined.
Same is true for Stephen Colbert.
There is ZERO comparison between AFV and either of them. It is not political in any way.
That has to be the stupidest comparison made here in a loooong time.
Bill Maher is arrogant as all hell.
Dennis Miller seems arrogant but actually is not.
Jon Stewart is not arrogant.
Arrogance is one of the primary qualities of the character Rush Limbaugh has refined.
Same is true for Stephen Colbert.
Stephen Colbert's arrogance is satire.
There is ZERO comparison between AFV and either of them. It is not political in any way.
That has to be the stupidest comparison made here in a loooong time.
There is ZERO comparison between Jon Stewart and Rush, Rush is not a comedian in anyway.
...Arrogance is one of the primary qualities of the character Rush Limbaugh has refined....
.
Thats what I think too, but Jinx is characterizing him as merely 'outraged', which gives it a whole different angle.
Jinx, my point is that I find that I don't care for right-wing comedians...I find them arrogant...I really hate Dennis Miller. (Actually his style comes off as hateful to me) So it just makes me wonder if that is why you dont like Stewarts political humor, because its not your politics.
What are my politics? As far as I know, I've got some from both sides...
Really, I just don't like infotainment in general. Takes the funny out of it for me. I say "arrogant" because as much as conservative like to be told they are morally correct, liberals like to be told they are smarter than conservatives. I just see the Daily Show as catering to that.
Are we saying Tom Bergeron AFV is arrogant, or Bob Saget AFV?
Because I always thought Bob Saget was like the Rush Limbaugh of Jon Stewarts.
Are we saying Tom Bergeron AFV is arrogant, or Bob Saget AFV?
Because I always thought Bob Saget was like the Rush Limbaugh of Jon Stewarts.
:lol:
Are we saying Tom Bergeron AFV is arrogant, or Bob Saget AFV?
Because I always thought Bob Saget was like the Rush Limbaugh of Jon Stewarts.
:rotflol:
Yes, it is.
You can disagree, but comparing americas funniest home videos is retarded. It's not political and it's laughing with, not at.
So it's more arrogant to make fun of politicians (and other celebrities) than non-celebrities? Is it that the AFV entries were sent in (laugh with vs laugh at; let me know if you meant something else by that)? Politicians live in public. They may not always like that someone outside of their intended audience hears a particular stupid thing they say, but not every AFV subject is the one who sent in the video.
Stewart is the "anchor" of his "news" show. He doesn't play an overt character like Colbert, or like his "reporters" or "experts" do on their segments, so he doesn't do satire along the lines of "A Modest Proposal"; he does humorous political commentary. Do you consider humorous political commentary inherently arrogant?
What are my politics? As far as I know, I've got some from both sides...
Really, I just don't like infotainment in general. Takes the funny out of it for me. I say "arrogant" because as much as conservative like to be told they are morally correct, liberals like to be told they are smarter than conservatives. I just see the Daily Show as catering to that.
The Daily Show makes fun of BOTH sides of the aisle. How is it catering to liberals if its makes fun of them?
Humorous is subjective, that's the rub.
He has a segment called "How will the Dems F* it up this time"!
The Daily Show makes fun of BOTH sides of the aisle. How is it catering to liberals if its makes fun of them?
I understand what you mean. Then again, I'm iberal.:p:
I understand what you mean. Then again, I'm iberal.:p:
You're iberian? ;)
Bill Maher is arrogant as all hell.
Dennis Miller seems arrogant but actually is not.
Jon Stewart is not arrogant.
Arrogance is one of the primary qualities of the character Rush Limbaugh has refined.
Same is true for Stephen Colbert.
I'd agree on all counts, but also say that Dennis Miller plays an arrogant character like Colbert.
If Limbaugh's arrogance is still just an act at this point (I agree it was in the beginning), I wonder what he thinks when any Republican politician who crosses him is forced to apologize. It must be surreal.
The Daily Show makes fun of BOTH sides of the aisle. How is it catering to liberals if its makes fun of them?
They made a union rep try to crawl out of his skin last night. The union had hired non-union temp workers at minimum wage with no benefits and low hours to picket Wal-Mart's lack of unions and benefits, and their hour cutbacks.
You're iberian? ;)
iberal. It's being Liberal without the
Humorous is subjective, that's the rub.
I didn't intend to imply objectively humorous; just intent to be humorous. I haven't found much of Dennis Miller's recent comedy particularly humorous, but I would consider his act to be "humorous political commentary".
Awwww, I love Sheldon!
I'm iberal oo, exxvett!
What are my politics? As far as I know, I've got some from both sides...
Really, I just don't like infotainment in general. Takes the funny out of it for me. I say "arrogant" because as much as conservative like to be told they are morally correct, liberals like to be told they are smarter than conservatives. I just see the Daily Show as catering to that.
I figured it was the elitist liberal business. I cant deny your point, there. I guess then, most of the moderates and independents who like watching the show are really closet liberals.
liberals like to [COLOR="Red"]think [/COLOR]they are smarter than conservatives. I just see the Daily Show as catering to that.
Fixed that for ya, and I agree.
I'm still pondering on how watching a dog play in the snow is political and comparable to this at all. My conclusion thus far is FAIL.
Fixed that for ya, and I agree.
I'm still pondering on how watching a dog play in the snow is political and comparable to this at all. My conclusion thus far is FAIL.
Smart people
are more likely to be Liberals than conservatives.
The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics.
Here's another study
Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.
Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.
I'm still pondering on how watching a dog play in the snow is political
Who said it was?
and comparable to this at all.
Jinx originally said Stewart's arrogance was displayed by making fun of people doing stupid things, which is the premise of AFV. It only came later that the arrogance is actually in
liberal people making fun of
conservatives doing stupid things, which added politics rather than just style into the equation, and explains why Limbaugh doesn't get saddled with arrogance as well as outrage.
Nice wrap up there, HM. :thumbsup:
Yeah, he's a regular Clodfobble.
Good read, but a very contradictory article.
Who said it was? ~irrelevant~
You entered it into the discussion.
Do you also view "America's Funniest Home Videos" as arrogant?
That show has NOTHING to do with politics nor those that were being discussed (Stewart & Limbaugh)
Enjoy your game of semantics.
Yes, it is.
You can disagree, but comparing americas funniest home videos is retarded. It's not political and it's laughing with, not at.
Sorry - Jinx already answered you.
You entered it into the discussion.
I never said it was political. I said that it was comparable, in the context that Jinx had set up as her objection to Stewart. Which is why the "who said it was?" was addressed explicitly to the "political", and I addressed the "comparable" separately.
And then you deleted that explanation as irrelevant, repeated the false implication that I had said AFV was political, and complained about semantics.
I said that it was comparable,
I understand your logic. It doesn't matter.
We just disagree and thats ok.
I never said it was political. I said that it was comparable, in the context that Jinx had set up as her objection to Stewart.
Uh huh, and again, what SIDE am I on if I say I don't like the stupid video show?
They made a union rep try to crawl out of his skin last night. The union had hired non-union temp workers at minimum wage with no benefits and low hours to picket Wal-Mart's lack of unions and benefits, and their hour cutbacks.
How did I miss that?
Uh huh, and again, what SIDE am I on if I say I don't like the stupid video show?
I'm guessing "the other side"
Uh huh, and again, what SIDE am I on if I say I don't like the stupid video show?
Huh? I asked whether you thought its premise was arrogant, not whether you liked it. I was curious what exactly Stewart was doing that placed his arrogance as equal to Limbaugh's outrageousness, but didn't place Limbaugh's arrogance at the same level.
SIDEs were more along Pico's thread than mine, and in that thread you clarified that it was Stewart as a liberal making fun of conservatives doing stupid things that you thought was arrogant. It seems to me that in your effort not to take a SIDE, you may have allowed your definition of arrogance to do so.
I'm sorry I got you all going on this track. Heinline said all humor is based on making fun of someone. I have no problem with that. If, however, you invite someone on your show, and then ambush them, and then show your smarmy arrogance by saying they're morally wrong, That sucks. I've seen it done lots of times, and it shows just elitist arrogance. By the way, when the people in those studies who become liberals in their young life finally grow up, the tables turn the other way. No offence to my liberal bretheren.
I'm sorry I got you all going on this track. Heinline said all humor is based on making fun of someone. I have no problem with that. If, however, you invite someone on your show, and then ambush them, and then show your smarmy arrogance by saying they're morally wrong, That sucks. I've seen it done lots of times, and it shows just elitist arrogance. By the way, when the people in those studies who become liberals in their young life finally grow up, the tables turn the other way. No offence to my liberal bretheren.
You didn't watch the whole interview. You can't get any real idea of how a 20minute interview was conducted in a few second clips from youtube.
There was no "ambushing" and the clips of Jim Cramer that Jon played, he gave Jim ample time/ability to respond.
But the crappy video he posted SAID that's what happened, so that's what happened.
I'm sorry I got you all going on this track. Heinline said all humor is based on making fun of someone. I have no problem with that. If, however, you invite someone on your show, and then ambush them, and then show your smarmy arrogance by saying they're morally wrong, That sucks. I've seen it done lots of times, and it shows just elitist arrogance.
I've seen it happen on the conservative shows, too.
By the way, when the people in those studies who become liberals in their young life finally grow up, the tables turn the other way. No offence to my liberal bretheren.
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
Just 64 years of watching people in public and private life. And of course, this...
Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those same numbers turn conservative later in life.:rolleyes:
Just 64 years of watching people in public and private life. And of course, this...
Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those same numbers turn conservative later in life.:rolleyes:
Oh yeah? Well analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those same numbers become even more Liberal later in life, were happier, better looking, were elected prom king and queen every year, and lived happily ever after.:rolleyes:
when the people in those studies who become liberals in their young life finally grow up, the tables turn the other way. No offence to my liberal bretheren.
This is the only "
study" I could find to answer that.
Take a look at the study and draw your own conclusions.
Oh yeah? Well analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those same numbers become even more Liberal later in life, were happier, better looking, were elected prom king and queen every year, and lived happily ever after.:rolleyes:
Yes, that does sound a lot like me, only my IQ was meaner. ;)
bumpity boo ...
Seems like the buzz has died out. Whats the latest?
I fully intend to be there with the wife and kids. My son has a soccer game that day, and my daughter has the car wash, but I think this is more important. Plus, it will be fun.
I won't be going after all. We have 7 different things scheduled for that day. WTF! This and one other event are not making it onto the schedule. Still going to be a busy day for me.
Comedy Central will simulcast it all.
lol - I wonder if Fox is gonna cover it. It seems as though every "political news outlet" is covering this non-political event.:eyebrow:
bumpity boo ...
Seems like the buzz has died out. Whats the latest?
Maybe John Stewart finally told everyone that this was just a joke.
Nah, there's still a little buzz about it. The latest is port-a-potty gate.
The Marine Corp Marathon is right after the rally, and the Marines were going to be installing all these port-a-potties with padlocks on them and they wouldn't take the padlocks off until after the rally was over so no John Stewart folks would poop in the Marines' potties. Now they aren't even going to set the potties up until after the rally is over.
John Stewart is getting his own potties. Larry King gave him a brand new potty on his show recently, and John said he would rope it off for Larry's personal use if Larry would come to the rally.
That's pretty funny. It will also be funny to see if they Stewart guys try to count the 10,000+ people who show up for the marathon as part of the people who showed up to their event.
My personal guess is they won't even try to count people at the event, because that kind of sound-bite one-upmanship is exactly the political mentality he is opposed to. It's about being moderate, not being on the side that's better than the other side.
Colbert will estimate attendance at 3 million.
I'm still excited its happening, just bummed I can't go. I am glad they are gonna show it online, I just don't know if it will only be available to watch during the event or also after. Anyone know?
The two events are now officially one, Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Oprah gave Stewart's audience bus tickets or something, and Colbert said "F* Oprah!" and gave his audience tickets too.
The Rally to Restore Sanity facebook page has over 200,000 people committed to going and the March has about 90,000.
Huffington Post founder said they will take as many buses as there are people to fill them, they just have to get to the meet spot in SoHo.
If you are going, you are encouraged by Colbert to wear your scariest costume (like a gay mexican bear) and you can upload the costume here:
http://www.spookyordooky.com/
to be compared to others.
For Sanity you can create a sign and upload:
http://www.saneornot.com/
Oh, and Obama will be on the The Daily Show Oct 27! It will be interesting to see how well he can answer some of Jon's questions...Jon has been pretty critical as of late.
Colbert will estimate attendance at 3 million.
:lol2: And that will be a big joke as well. Colbert is a GD fool and should be charged for the waste of time he used in front of the Congressional committee.
My personal guess is they won't even try to count people at the event, because that kind of sound-bite one-upmanship is exactly the political mentality he is opposed to. It's about being moderate, not being on the side that's better than the other side.
Bullshite. Colbert doesn't have a moderate frigging bone in his body.
What's fun about Colbert is...
half the liberals believe he is a Conservative, and
half the conservatives believe he is a Liberal.
The other two halves agree with everything he says. ;)
I think he is a Goddammed fool. I have more respect for John Stewart.
Jon Stewart, no "h".
Colbert's personality is complete satire. He's a genius. His whole show/personality is about bringing to light the hypocrisy, inconstancy, and utter ridiculousness of much of our news and politicians. I'm surprised you don't agree with a lot of his points merc.
He was ASKED to testify, and so he did. He paid for all of his travel and stay. Cannot be any worse than having Elmo testifying. A lot of "experts" that testify at these proceedings are just as ridiculous and unqualified as Colbert. I think he did make a good point about us needing more work visas, and that if we improve the quality of working conditions for the lowliest, then the improvements would basically trickle up.
The really important thing: his testimony brought the whole proceeding to an audience that would usually ignore such things. My generation has a bad tendency to be uninvolved and apathetic, I think its great that there are people like Colbert and Stewart that make these issues accessible to us. We're not dumb and we don't just take them at their word. We research independently also, but these guys give us a jumping off point we might otherwise miss. I know that since I began watching their shows, I've become much more interested about current events, but I don't agree with either of them completely. I do a lot of my own research, but I'm more likely to after getting interested in a tidbit they had on the show.
mtp, I think you are the exception, not the rule. I applaud you for your interest in the politics that are going to effect you and your children, if you ever have any. But that is not the norm for your generation. I have three children, 2 in their 20's and one near so. Few if any of them or their friends are politically aware. I can't blame the youngest 2, they are college kids and consumed with their intensive studies, the oldest is quite liberal, and I support her, but she is the exception.
Again, I applaud you for taking the time to research and formulate your own opinions as well as to stay involved in current events.
Bullshite. Colbert doesn't have a moderate frigging bone in his body.
Did you know he teaches Sunday School? The real guy, not the character. He's far more conservative in real life than Jon Stewart, and has admitted that actually, sometimes he agrees with large parts of his satirical rants.
Colbert will estimate attendance at 3 million.
Or more
:lol2: And that will be a big joke as well. Colbert is a GD fool and should be charged for the waste of time he used in front of the Congressional committee.
Bullshite. Colbert doesn't have a moderate frigging bone in his body.
I think he is a Goddammed fool. I have more respect for John Stewart.
The above quote illustrate that merc has absolutely NO sense of humor.
Nor is he aware of who Colbert really is.
Merc, your experience really is not so extraordinary, if either of us may be taken as examples. If you grew as I did, politics just wasn't all that interesting in your twenties, save only if something political directly affected you in your job -- military, and the like. Even then, it was something remote, no?
Only a very small fraction of the college-aged are into politics. Like Karl Rove, who was one of these, they grow up into campaign managers and staffers. Or they go to law school with intent to become pols. Perhaps a few aspire even to be solons.
In the late thirties, this begins to shift. Politics gets interesting to the fortysomethings; it's often as not a game for the old men. The young have other things on their minds.
Did you know he teaches Sunday School? The real guy, not the character. He's far more conservative in real life than Jon Stewart, and has admitted that actually, sometimes he agrees with large parts of his satirical rants.
That is why everything that comes out of his mouth should not be taken seriously and is considered nothing more than sitdown comedy.
But they all look like normal people, where are all the dirty pot smoking hippies? ;)
Stewart makes fun of both Republicans and Democrats.
That's not quite the whole picture.
He makes fun of both sides with equal vigor when politicians do stupid shit, that's true. And he is very sharp in his critique of hypocrisy of any shade, from either side.
But when he satirizes politicians on matters of POLICY, he does it in two different ways. He rips on Republicans when they follow conservative ideology. He only rips on Democrats when they FAIL to follow liberal ideology.
I've watched hundreds of episodes of The Daily Show. I've never hear Stewart once rip on a Democrat for promoting a liberal policy. I've heard him rip on Republicans many times for promoting a conservative policy.
The subtly of that distinction is important.
I've never doubted he favors a liberal agenda. I doubt that anyone would mistake him for a conservative, or even a moderate leaning conservative, or conservative leaning moderate. But he could be a liberal leaning moderate, or a moderate leaning liberal.
Confused? That's because those labels don't tell you much. More often they are used to put someone in a pigeon hole, rather than discuss what their view is on any particular issue(s).
I think that's our biggest problem right now, stressing how we are different, ignoring what we have in common, which means no dialog.
I went. Wow. It was huge. I got fairly close, but not quite close enough to reliably hear. I've been to several events on the mall, and this was the biggest.
Cool. Did you have fun? I only saw 45 minutes of it streamed online. It was amazing how many people were there.
Now if all those people will bother to vote. :eyebrow:
“Rally to Restore Sanity” pledges to “strictly prohibit filming” at National Mall
By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
10/29/10 10:35 PM EDT
Irony reaches new heights as Comedy Central is going to “strictly prohibit filming” of the Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive. PJTV’s Washington Bureau chief Richard Pollock inquired with the Comedy Central’s senior vice president of corporate communications Steve Albani about receiving credentials. Albani claimed that Pollock would not be given credentials because of limited supply, and as such there would be no room on the “press riser” for PJTV’s camera and crew. When Pollock said that he’d be fine with filming not on the press riser, Albani said that filming would be “strictly prohibited” between 3rd and 7th streets on the National Mall (ground zero for the event). The email exchange is further down.
The claim that Comedy Central can prohibit filming on federal property during an event open to the public is completely wrong. I know this because I co-organized the first D.C. Tea Party event with John O’Hara (again, prior to my employment at The Examiner, yadda yadda), meaning I’ve gone through the process of getting a permit on federal property run by the National Park Service, which is precisely what Comedy Central had to do. And under the special events guidelines, which Albani may not have taken time to look at, is this:
News coverage of the event is allowed without additional permits unless significant additional equipment set-up, which is not depicted on the Permittees site plan, is involved. Arrangements for press and broadcast media coverage of the event must be made at least seven (7) days before the opening day of the event.
Here’s another resource, too. If PJTV’s crew walks around with handheld cameras, they’re well within their rights, particularly as a media organization — especially considering the number of camera phones, Flipcams, and personal camcorders that will be used during the event. But wait — it looks like somebody at Comedy Central read the rules because there’s a list on the Rally’s Frequently Asked Questions page about what is not permitted, and cameras are unlisted. In fact, the FAQ even says that the event is open to the media and to contact about credentials.
You don’t need credentials to film an event open to the public on federal land that has already permitted other media outlets. Comedy Central has not leased the National Mall, nor could it. In other words, quit it. Either this is a fun publicity stunt steeped in irony or it’s an exercise in corporate control. And last I checked, it’s not “Comedy Central Planning.”
In fact, the Tea Party movement has done a bang-up job allowing as many kooky reporters and camera-toting people into their rallies, and simply found ways to deal with it without clamping down on free press. (The most innovative is using signs to expose Tea Party imposters.) In fact, as Lachlan Markay notes, the press is going wild for this event, but Glenn Beck’s Rally to Restore Hope was willing to provide more credentials (though it’s uncertain who, if any, were ever denied):
For some perspective, consider that the September 12, 2010 Tea Party on the Mall received roughly 150 requests for press credentials, according to FreedomWorks, which sponsored the event.
Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally granted 450 such credentials to journalists, but in the brief contact NewsBusters had with Beck’s staff there was no indication that any reporter who had requested credentials had been turned down.
There’s the real irony: While this rally seeks to make fun of Tea Party activists who advocate for freedom, Comedy Central is looking to tightly control the event as much as possible. Lame.
Be sure and read Pollock’s fantastic rejoinder at the end of the email thread.
From: “Albani, Steve”
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:59:27 -0400
To: Richard Pollock
Subject: RE: DC Rally Update
Richard – you should have received notification yesterday. Unfortunately, due to extremely limited riser locations, we are not able to accommodate your request for credentials. However, the event is free and open to public so we encourage you to attend with the general audience.
Please note, taping for television or any other filming is strictly prohibited between 3rd and 7th Street without a media credential. The event will be broadcast live on Comedy Central and comedycentral.com and a clean feed will also be available by satellite – coordinates will be released when they are available. Please contact Renata Luczak to receive the satellite coordinates.
From: Richard Pollock
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 3:14 PM
To: Albani, Steve
Subject: Re: DC Rally Update
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your reply. Can we get media credentials without a riser position?
Yours,
Richard
From: Albani, Steve
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 3:15 PM
To: Richard Pollock
Subject: RE: DC Rally Update
The only camera crews that will receive credentials are those for the riser. We are not issuing any other TV credentials.
Sorry.
Steve
From: “Richard Pollock”
Date: Oct 29, 2010 6:33 PM
Subject: RE: DC Rally Update
To: “Albani, Steve”
Hi Steve,
Well your risers, you own. As Comedy Central, you have property rights and complete control over that. No one will deny you that. We are content, though disappointed with your decision to withhold media credentials to us.
However, the last I heard the First Amendment still does apply to America. It not only applies to TV hosts, show producers and to networks, but extends to the public and to events held on federal land. Yes, public lands! Although it may not make any sense to you at this moment, the National Mall is not a TV set, although it may look like one.
As the former chief Washington producer for ABC’s “Good Morning America” for nine years, let me assure you that you cannot bar cameras from public walkways on the Mall. It has never happened.
And so we will be there crew and all.
It does seem a bit incredulous that a rally for “reasonableness” should exclude freely based camera crews exercising their First Amendment rights to cover your attendees walking on public property. Unless this is Prague in 1968. And unless Comedy Central own tanks. Or unless it deploys a Comedy Police with enforcement powers.
On the other hand maybe I got this all wrong…I thought you were merely trying to be clever when you said it was a rally for fear. If is that, then I certainly understand your attitudes and rules.
See you tomorrow!
All the best,
Richard
Read more at the Washington Examiner:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/rally-to-resore-sanity-pledges-to-strictly-prohibit-filming-at-national-mall-106355893.html#ixzz13tF6MPadIt was fun, but mostly from reading the signs. The audio system wasn't set up for the number who showed up, and I couldn't always hear.
You lie,Foot, there's no more at the link, it's all here. :p:
It would appear Pollock's disdain for Albani, has caused him to commit ashattery. :rolleyes:
I wonder if anyone else has been denied?
You lie,Foot, there's no more at the link, it's all here. :p:
It would appear Pollock's disdain for Albani, has caused him to commit ashattery. :rolleyes:
I wonder if anyone else has been denied?
HaHa they snuck that in at the end. But it's true, you can read more at the link, just not more about that particular subject...;)
I checked Fox about it, and apparently they were able to have a crew there. No mention of restrictions.
Now if all those people will bother to vote. :eyebrow:
Ah, but they're all moderates, so who would they vote for?
But nobody's mentioned the most important part of the Rally . . .
Ozzy and Yusuf!!!! Whoohoo!
The reason there's nobody on those grassy squares is that it was fenced off.
The reason there are people on those other grassy squares is that some felt it reasonable to open the fence and relieve some congestion.
HM, what you couldn't hear...
"And now I thought we might have a moment, however brief, for some sincerity, if that’s ok; I know there are boundaries for a comedian, pundit, talker guy, and I’m sure I’ll find out tomorrow how I have violated them.
I’m really happy you guys are here, even if none of us are really quite sure why we are here. Some of you may have seen today as a clarion call for action, or some of the hipper, more ironic cats as a clarion call for ‘action.’ Clearly, some of you just wanted to see the Air and Space Museum and got royally screwed. And I’m sure a lot of you are here to have a nice time, and I hope you did. I know that many of you made a great effort to be here today, and I want you to know that everyone involved with this project worked incredibly hard to make sure that we honor the effort that you put in and gave you the best show we could possibly do. We know your time is valuable, and we didn’t want to waste it. And we are all extremely honored to have had a chance to perform for you on this beautiful space, on The Mall in Washington, D.C.
So, uh, what exactly was this? I can’t control what people think this was, I can only tell you my intentions. This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith, or people of activism, or to look down our noses at the heartland, or passionate argument, or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies. But, unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country’s 24-hour, politico, pundit, perpetual, panic conflictanator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen. Or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected, dangerous flaming ant epidemic. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.
There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats, but those titles that must earned; you must have the resume. Not being able to be able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe, not more. The press is our immune system. If it overreacts to everything, we actually get sicker, and perhaps eczema. And yet, with that being said, I feel good: strangely, calmly good. Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us through a fun-house mirror, and not the good kind that makes you look slim in the waist and maybe taller, but the kind where you have a giant forehead and an ass shaped like a month-old pumpkin with one eyeball.
So why would we work together? Why would you reach across the aisle to a pumpkin-assed, forehead, eyeball monster? If the picture of us were true, of course our inabilities to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable. Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution, or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own? We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is, on the brink of catastrophe torn by polarizing hate. And how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done. But the truth is, we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don’t is here or on cable TV. But Americans don’t live here or on cable TV. Where we live, our values and principles form the foundation that sustains us while we get things done, not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done.
Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, or Conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often, something they do not want to do, but they do it. Impossible things every day, that are only made possible through the little reasonable compromises we all make.
Look. Look on the screen. This is where we are; this is who we are: these cars. That’s a schoolteacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high. He’s going to work. There’s another car. A woman with two small kids, can’t really think about anything else right now. There’s another car, swaying, I don’t even know if you can see it. The lady’s in the NRA and loves Oprah. There’s another car. An investment banker: gay, also likes Oprah. Another car’s a Latino carpenter. Another car a fundamentalist vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan. But this is us. Every one of the cars you see is filled with individuals of strong beliefs and principles they hold dear. Often, principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers. And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile-long, thirty-foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river. Carved by people who by the way I’m sure had their differences. And they do it. Concession by concession. You go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car? Ah, well that’s okay, you go, then I’ll go. And sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute. But that individual is rare, and he is scorned not hired as an analyst.
Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light, we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes, the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes, it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together. If you want to know why I’m here and what I want from you, I can only assure you this: you have already given it to me. Your presence was what I wanted. Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. And to see you here today and the kind of people that you are has restored mine. Thank you.”
•Jon Stewart at The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, October 30, 2010
just in case no one has posted this link before:
100 best signs a the rally
... and my :2cents:
Heres another bit of sanity...
[YOUTUBE]nnUfPQVOqpw[/YOUTUBE]
No no, 6 minutes is way too long to listen to facts, when slogans can be shouted out in seconds. ;)
Heres another bit of sanity...
That was really great. Thanks!
So, if I'm understanding all of the post-game wrap up correctly,
sanity ≠ tea party.
Has anyone seen anything from the rally, any sign or slogan, that makes fun of liberal extremism? No?
Cool.
Just checking the plumb-line.
Smooth again with the reality-check....mate!
Oh and it wasn't political - riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Has anyone seen anything from the rally, any sign or slogan, that makes fun of liberal extremism? No?
So the liberals are making fun of the conservatives? I don't see that as being a bad thing. I wish the conservatives were
making fun of the liberals. It would be much better than the hate and fear mongering they're spreading.
So, if I'm understanding all of the post-game wrap up correctly,
sanity ≠ tea party.
Has anyone seen anything from the rally, any sign or slogan, that makes fun of liberal extremism? No?
Cool.
Just checking the plumb-line.
For one thing, the Tea Party put a big bulls eye on its forehead with the Beck Rally. Did you see their signs? Have you heard their rhetoric?
Stewart also nailed the lefty talking heads like Olbermann and Matthews. But mostly, he was attacking the rhetoric of hate and fear that you see on TV by politicians and talking heads alike.
Secondly, whats really your beef here? That moderate leftys attended a rally? So what?
Who said it wasn't political?
Nobody claimed it wasn't political.
Plenty of people claimed it was "centrist" or "moderate". I object to the co-opting of those terms as the exclusive provenance of the left. I object to the implication that the right is the only side that needs to be "moderated".
I object most of all to Stewart presenting himself as the everyman above the fray, speaking out for the voiceless middle, when he is in fact nothing of the kind.
Objection noted.
But the 200,000 that attended and millions more that watched, don't feel that way. In fact a lot of us really appreciated the rally. It was really nice to see a sane counter reaction to the hate and fear directed at liberals.
They claimed it wasn't political and therefore didn't have to give equal time to the "other side" for free. There was a big brew ha ha about it. If they admitted it was political they would have had to give equal time...
But they have been explicit about one aspect: "This is not a political rally in any way, shape or form," Stewart told CNN's Larry King last week.
Link
Link
Link ... to the hate and fear directed at liberals.
Most of that is hatred of liberal ideology, and fear of the likely consequences if that ideology is played out as policy.
Classic, Stewart and Colbert didn't endorse any politician...didn't name one or show one. Their show at the rally was apolitical.
They cant control the attendees, tho.
I agree with you that the rally was a good thing. But make no mistake it was political AND there was plenty of hate from those that were there which was not shown in the media. For example...
Coming just three days before the mid-term elections it would be almost impossible for any reasonable person to not conclude that the true goal of the rally is to close the “enthusiasm gap” that the Democrats have been suffering from and make one last attempt to get out the vote in an attempt to avoid a disaster on Tuesday.
Several weeks ago many of the major news media organizations issued a preemptive strike against their employees banning them from attending the rally in a thinly veiled effort to shield themselves from potential accusations of liberal bias as they cover the rally.
Stewart could have easily done what Beck did and request that no signs be brought to the rally and devote his program to a non political cause or organization but instead he has let the liberals run amok and turn the event into a giant Democrat organizing event.
With Arianna Huffington paying for 200 buses from New York to bring people to the rally and Oprah paying for Stewart’s audience to come as well there is little doubt how the media is likely to spin the event.
LinkIve looked at at least 100 of the signs and yours is the first of that kind that I've seen.
No kidding - Thats the point. They aren't being shown. HELLO??? THIS THING ON?
So you saw the ones not being shown?
Come on, Classic, share more.
How about putting a link with that quote.
Google them yourself.
Its your point. Back it up. Otherwise, I am just going to continue with the assumption that signs like that were rare.
In fact, Classic, here is a
site that is tallying the signs. So far they have 350 to list and they are so not like the one you showed that my assumption still stands.
How about putting a link with that quote.
Sorry bout that. Done.
Its your point. Back it up. Otherwise, I am just going to continue with the assumption that signs like that were rare.
That's fine with me. I never claimed anything other than that they were there and a quick Google search gave me some without any trouble. There is no point in putting any more up. How many would I have to put up anyway? 5? 10? 100? And to what end? Whats the point?
It doesn't really matter.
The point is that the mainstream media didn't point out one, not one. And there were plenty there. Were they in the minority? Of course. But again, As far as the mainstream media reported it, it was a love fest against extremists. That simply wasn't the whole truth. I have no intention of convincing you of anything. It was a political rally and there were hate signs there. Inconvenient for you - maybe, but facts nonetheless.
from NBC...
In his Washington Post column Sunday, Robert McCartney wrote that though “the crowd was wary of admitting it,” it was “decidedly partisan and decidedly liberal.” Though attendees told him that they “wanted less anger and more thoughtfulness in public debate and media coverage of what ails the nation,” follow-up questions showed that most thought “more calm debate and rationality would inevitably lead to adoption of pretty much the entire campaign platform of the national Democratic Party.”
Despite all this, the rally was good for democracy. Stewart genuinely believes in respectful debate -- he has chided audiences of his show for booing conservative guests, and he has a good relationship with some right-leaning media peers like Bill O’Reilly. But the rally also showed that intolerance of other views is not merely a right-wing phenomenon.
Bold mine.
From NBC
Just for fun ... Here is another pic.
But those very very few signs didn't define the rally. The hundreds of other signs did. See the list at the link in my post above.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Heres hundreds more for you to look at, Classic.
Heres hundreds more for you to look at, Classic.
He's not gonna look! He's too busy bursting his buttons over a rally.
He's being twerpy about this whole thing.
But you left out he lead in to that quote...
Jon Stewart’s “restoring Sanity” rally on the mall in Washington, D.C. tomorrow wasn’t supposed to be political based on what Stewart himself has said but attendees are planning for a liberal love fest and the mainstream media will be playing along.
Stewart pitched this to Comedy Central as a publicity stunt, but considering his audience, and being the first opportunity for people to demonstrate their displeasure with the hate rhetoric, the attendees made it political.
When money talks, it spews hate. The ads on television are 1% vote for me, and 99% vote against him.
So now you admit that some hateful signs were there... well at least that's progress.
Perhaps you also missed this...
I agree with you that the rally was a good thing. But make no mistake it was political
ETA - Bri - I'[m nt busting shit over the rally. you all and your "We're better than them attitude" makes me sick. Especially when proven wrong.
Twerpy? WTF is that? You don't like the reality that there are people on "your side" as hateful as those you despise on the other. Tough shit. Welcome to the real world.
Who me? I didn't see any hateful signs. I don't think the one you posted is hateful. Calling anyone who doesn't agree a socialist/Nazi/communist is hateful.
So now you admit that some hateful signs were there... well at least that's progress.
Perhaps you also missed this...
ETA - Bri - I'[m nt busting shit over the rally. you all and your "We're better than them attitude" makes me sick. Especially when proven wrong.
Twerpy? WTF is that? You don't like the reality that there are people on "your side" as hateful as those you despise on the other. Tough shit. Welcome to the real world.
Cuz you're being a twerp. I never said that there weren't such signs, only that I didn't see them and that they must be rare...
AND THEY ARE. You haven't proven me wrong.
Who me? I didn't see any hateful signs. I don't think the one you posted is hateful. Calling anyone who doesn't agree a socialist/Nazi/communist is hateful.
Picture on post 159?
I hadn't seen that when I posted, I was talking about the previous sign he had posted. Yes that's hateful, to respond in kind with the same type of signs as the teabaggers. But mpt's point still stands, those signs were few and far between.
What have the Democrat's done?
[YOUTUBE]lXxeiL8UV4U[/YOUTUBE]
Oh, and here's what the Republicans are doing...
http://pol.moveon.org/republicorp_orgchart/This one is a
parody on the TP hate slogans, not a serious statement:
Though I cannot prove it, the inconsistent JPEG artifacts in different parts of the image below seem to suggest it was shopped:
Twerpy? WTF is that? You don't like the reality that there are people on "your side" as hateful as those you despise on the other. Tough shit. Welcome to the real world.
Not having your party in power seems to correlate with how likely you are going to start calling your opponents Nazis or at least it will make you yell it louder. If conservatives take over and have full power five years from now I bet it will switch back to how it was five years ago.
Also, despite Stewart's obvious liberal leaning, I don't doubt that he tried to make the rally apolitical, even though his audience would make it impossible for him. Intolerance from both sides are going to make it that much harder for politicians to get anything important and controversial done and both liberals and conservatives have figured this out, not just unbiased observers.
I agree with you that the rally was a good thing. But make no mistake it was political AND there was plenty of hate from those that were there which was not shown in the media. For example...
That's not hate, it's humor.
No kidding - Thats the point. They aren't being shown. HELLO??? THIS THING ON?
Wasn't last week nice? Where's Redux?
I hadn't seen that when I posted, I was talking about the previous sign he had posted. Yes that's hateful, to respond in kind with the same type of signs as the teabaggers. But mpt's point still stands, those signs were few and far between.
What have the Democrat's done?
[YOUTUBE]lXxeiL8UV4U[/YOUTUBE]
Oh, and here's what the Republicans are doing...
http://pol.moveon.org/republicorp_orgchart/
Thanks for posting that, Bruce.
Its a mystery to me why that 'cheerleading' started so late. Too late.
Though I cannot prove it, the inconsistent JPEG artifacts in different parts of the image below seem to suggest it was shopped:
Tell that to NBC.
Not having your party in power seems to correlate with how likely you are going to start calling your opponents Nazis or at least it will make you yell it louder.
Which by that sign is what the liberals did. Thats all I was saying.
Intolerance from both sides are going to make it that much harder for politicians to get anything important and controversial done and both liberals and conservatives have figured this out, not just unbiased observers.
Agreed. The problem lies where one side criticizes the other and yet part of them do exactly the same thing.
That piece is by this very same Bill Maher. :eyebrow:
HBO's Bill Maher had a message for Muslims on his show Friday night: Get out of "the Western world."
Maher noted the news that Mohammed (when its various spellings are combined) is the year's most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He said:
Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? ... I should be alarmed, and I don't apologize for it.
One guest, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, responded that Maher's statement was "worse" than Juan Williams' admission of his fears of people wearing Muslim clothes on airplanes.
None of this is particularly surprising coming from Maher, who, while he likes to present himself as an equal opportunity religion-basher (see his movie "Religulous"), has long singled out Muslims (and, for that matter, Arabs).
The problem lies where one side criticizes the other and yet part of them do exactly the same thing.
A very, very, very small part, if you are talking about the signs. The signs at the Comedy Central rally were much more calm and funny than the signs at the various tea party rallies. You had to look past the thousands of nice signs to find examples of "negative" signs, and even then, one of the "negative" signs was just a joke that you didn't get.
Most of that is hatred of liberal ideology, and fear of the likely consequences if that ideology is played out as policy.
They are being led by the nose to fear liberal ideology- in toto, and its irrational.
Much of liberal policy has helped to improve the lives of the everyday working person and to also protect them from the abuses that would be caused by unregulated businesses. Its that same liberal ideology that led us out of the world of Sinclair's The Jungle.
But you left out he lead in to that quote...
Inocorrect, I quoted Stewart in post #146
But they have been explicit about one aspect: "This is not a political rally in any way, shape or form," Stewart told CNN's Larry King last week.
Who let the dick back in?
glatt - Have you gone to both rallies or are you making that assumption based upon media coverage?
They are being led by the nose to fear liberal ideology- in toto, and its irrational.
"They" very nice.
Much of liberal policy has helped to improve the lives of the everyday working person and to also protect them from the abuses that would caused by unregulated businesses. Its that same liberal ideology that led us out of the world of Sinclair's The Jungle.
And you believe all the conservative policy is bad and icky. Gotcha.
Again, I thought the rally was a good thing (third time stating that point)
BUT ......
It was a political rally and there were negative and hateful signs there. I have proved that point repeatedly.
Who let the dick back in?
Nice, real nice. oh an classy too.
Much of liberal policy has helped to improve the lives of the everyday working person and to also protect them from the abuses that would be caused by unregulated businesses. Its that same liberal ideology that led us out of the world of Sinclair's The Jungle.
I do believe sensible regulation is needed, especially in banking, but remember that
The Jungle was essentially a work of fiction used to drive earlier regulation. Left to its own ends, the left would clog all economic activity with unrelenting regulation destroying mostly small businesses, which don't have the where-with-all to negotiate the red tape. The right, left to its own ends, would work to enslave and poison us all by protecting monopoly and subverting environmental regulations. Both parties seem to be working to shield big business from a competitive marketplace, which makes sense when you look at their donors.
Thanks Griff. Very well said/written/posted.
Sorry Pico - just being what was it? Twerpy or a Dick or ...
You don't believe that the Tea Partiers are being directed?
I would assume so - All of these things are.
I'll ask you the same of the Rally.
glatt - Have you gone to both rallies or are you making that assumption based upon media coverage?
I have been to a tea party rally in DC and I know several people who attended the Comedy Central rally on Saturday, and I looked at their pictures and heard what they had to say. I also watched 45 minutes of it online.
Do you think your examples of "negative" sign photos are even remotely close to accurately portraying the vibe at the Comedy Central rally?
That's not hate, it's humor.
Thats your opinion.
Wasn't last week nice?
Yes it was.
Where's Redux?
He asked for his account to be deleted.
Do you think your examples of "negative" sign photos are even remotely close to accurately portraying the vibe at the Comedy Central rally?
NO! Not at all - I NEVER SAID IT WAS! :mad2:
Again ... I said the rally was a good thing (4x now)
I simply brought up the point that it was a political rally and there were hateful signs there as well. That is all.
I was pushed to prove both points and I did - repeatedly.
Do you think your examples of "negative" sign photos are even remotely close to accurately portraying the vibe at the Comedy Central rally?
NO! Not at all - I NEVER SAID IT WAS! :mad2:
Again ... I said the rally was a good thing (4x now)
I simply brought up the point that it was a political rally and there were hateful signs there as well. That is all.
I was pushed to prove both points and I did - repeatedly.
Thanks for clarifying that the pictures you posted and repeatedly defended don't reflect what you think. Surely you can understand my confusion though. I saw you say the rally was good, but then you started posting negative pictures and defending them. It seemed like you were changing you mind about the rally.
He asked for his account to be deleted.
I guess we don't need him to have an ugly thread.
Where's Redux?
He asked for his account to be deleted.
Mhm. Leaving the Cellar, and the field, to the people of freedom, which, being a Democratic Party Kool-Aid carrier, he was definitely not.
Hasn't, in the end, the courage of his convictions. Not compared to the likes of Classic, Merc, and me.
Spexx, m'dear, "ugly" is a word better spelt F R E E and A D U L T, as in
adult thinking, which is something that just prevents you remaining on the Left.
Thanks for clarifying that the pictures you posted and repeatedly defended don't reflect what you think. Surely you can understand my confusion though. I saw you say the rally was good, but then you started posting negative pictures and defending them. It seemed like you were changing you mind about the rally.
Why does an attempt at presenting all the observations made come out as confusing? Could it be he's making the effort to be complete? Deliver the whole of the picture?
Complete would mean showing the 1000 normal funny signs and including the one "hate filled" sign along with them. Cherrypicking is not showing the complete picture. He even said that the sign he showed doesn't reflect the vibe of the rally.
He asked for his account to be deleted.
Realllyyyyyyyy, now. THAT is interesting. When someone else I know asked for the same consideration he was told "we don't do that."
And how do you know anyway?
From the top to the bottom: fucking idiots.
Gooses and ganders only get gotten when gayly gathering posies for the asses of the articulate asshats.
Realllyyyyyyyy, now. THAT is interesting. When someone else I know asked for the same consideration he was told "we don't do that."
And how do you know anyway?
UT posted it - I believe in the APB thread.
Complete would mean showing the 1000 normal funny signs and including the "hate filled" sign[COLOR="Red"]S[/COLOR] along with them.
Others already posted links to the hundreds. My doing it as well would have been pointlessly redundant.
I guess it goes down to how you define "plenty of hate". I wouldn't say there were plenty of counterprotesters there, though I did see two.
Inocorrect, I quoted Stewart in post #146
Not incorrect, post 150 you quoted what John Irvine wrote, after the NY Times quote on his page. I said you left out what he wrote before the NY Times quote, and added it.
I think this is what Yusuf meant when he talked about Rushdie. :rolleyes:
Complete would mean showing the 1000 normal funny signs and including the one "hate filled" sign along with them. Cherrypicking is not showing the complete picture. He even said that the sign he showed doesn't reflect the vibe of the rally.
So how is that different from what the press did at Tea Party events?
But those very very few signs didn't define the rally. The hundreds of other signs did. See the list at the link in my post above.
Why wouldn't people give the same deference to the Tea Party?
Because when the pictures of the tea party signs are posted, there are dozens and dozens of really hateful signs, with no point but name calling. I've seen funny signs too, some rather clever ones, but the hate signs are in the majority. Now that may be because the hate signs are better posting material, but there are so many of them, they can't be isolated instances.
The other thing is the interviews with tea party attendees, where when asked what they're upset about, can only respond with slogans and slurs. Because of who's doing the interviews, and why, I figured it was like Jay Leno's man on the street bit. Talk to a hundred people, and pick out the idiots to make the clip, so I wrote that off.
But when I talk to people, real live working(or not) people, I get the same response from 90% of them. That bothers me a lot. It's ok they disagree with Obama, but these people are really and truly clueless. When they tell me Obama isn't a citizen, their taxes have doubled in the last two years, or Obama caused the recession, I know they're out in lala land.
That's depressing because these people are being used, and in my opinion to fuck themselves and the country.
I agree with you and would say that on that same note when you talk to people about what Obamacare is going to do for them, or how, when Obama got elected, what people expected Obama to do for them was filled with equally clueless comments and expectations. It was obvious that they were told one thing, or at least believed what they had been told in the run up to the election and they got something different. Maybe that contributed to the huge loss yesterday.
I never actually attended any Tea Party events in this area, but we passed by quite a few over the last year or so, I never saw a single hateful sign at any of them. They just looked like ordinary folks. But you know the press, which is liberal by and large, will seek out the pictures of the extremists to further denigrate those they disagree with and then try to repeatedly pass and post those as the mainstream. The NAACP tried it and failed in a big way to paint the organization as racist. At first they were passed off as "astroturf", and now supporters effectively used the system to oust long standing incumbent politicians. That is a good thing IMHO. They were a success. So much for "astroturf"...
Bruce, if you are such a great mind, let's see your ass go to three TEA parties and find something out for yourself. My experience of TEA parties does not remotely resemble what you think you're seeing.
If you're going to content yourself with hostile secondhand accounts, how are you escaping bigotry, I wonder?
I don't have to go there, I've got you.
You do have to go there, and three times: I won't do.
After all, you're more interested in putting me down and pleading to remain mired in your darkness occasionally, than in engaging in personal growth.
I'm more interested in growing than in putting you down. Nor am I here to steer you wrong.
