Chilly

Stop video taping high schoolers from your van! They don't care if you have candy!

Must be, since you have no idea what you are talking about, and didn't comprehend my post or the article. Listen up, school is in session. Neither link you posted was relevant to your point. The 2nd one especially because it wasn't even to your own post, but to a post by RTB. First, let me start off by talking about my own post, then I will repond to the link you posted and explain why its not proof of what you are saying. The whole point to my first post was that, because the Daily Show is not responsible for the higher political knowledge among people watching it (which is stated directly in the part of the study that I posted), people generally already know most of the stories that the Daily Show is talking about. This means they already know what is real, and what isn't. Thus, since people can differentiate between what is real on the Daily Show and what is different, your concerns are unfounded. But lets take a look at the article that you are talking about. First off, I'm 21, and if I was asked if The Daily Show was a source of news for me, I'd say hell yeah. It has to do with reading comprehension and actually understanding what the word source means. According to dictionary.com, source has 5 meanings as a noun. We are going to look at meaning #4, which is the relevant meaning in this case. source (sôrs, srs) n. 4. One, such as a person or document, that supplies information: A reporter is only as reliable as his or her sources. Guess what? Its a thing that supplies information. So, does the Daily Show supply information? True, factual information? Yep, it does. If you don't think it does, you haven't watched it. If you see just one news story on there that you haven't seen other places, guess what? Its a source of news for you that day. If you repeat this over multiple days, its a normal source of news for you. It *also* jokes heavily and makes fun of the government with a very cynical view, but it does talk about real news stories. Therefore, The Daily Show *is* a source of news. I've seen stories on there about senate/house races that I hadn't seen other places, and it was very easy to seperate what was fake from what wasn't, given a background in political knowledge, like the majority of his viewers. Now, lets break down that article you posted in your first link. First off, its not surprising that they don't cite network news, but they do cite the Daily Show and SNL. It has to do with the schedules of people aged 18-29. They are *much* more likely to be at home during the time that the Daily Show and SNL is on, compared to network news. Secondly, network news has never had a big draw for young people. But guess what? Television isn't the only source of news, which this article is making it out to be. This typical young news consumer lists many different sources. I have a similar news habit, with websites (cnn.com, newspaper, news.google.com) and the Daily Show. I get new stories on the Daily Show that I haven't seen on other places. Its a source for me. But I can tell whats fake from whats real, and if I ever have a problem, I can just google it to find out for sure, just like most of the Daily Show's viewership. This point is further driven home by the article that you posted, so thanks. Yet, the Daily Show had an audience which was more informed then network news audiences. Know why? Cause they get their news from other sources as well, and can tell what is real and what is not. So, lets look at what we've established: 1.) The Daily Show is a news source for young Americans, and it does supply truthful news mixed in with humor and joking. Therefore, it IS a true news source, but not all of the program is true, and some of it is fake, just like other news comedy shows. 2.) The Daily Show is a larger news source for young Americans than network news, but this does not mean that it is the only news source that young Amerians use. 3.) Young American's don't watch Network News, but this doesn't mean that they are uninformed. Actually, it just means that network news isn't convenient and doesn't cover the topics that young American's care about. 4.) People that just use the Daily Show as a sole news source aren't very well informed. 5.) People that watch the Daily Show are well informed, much more informed then other viewers of network news. 6.) Therefore, the majority of people who watch the Daily Show don't use it as their primary news source, and can tell the difference between whats real and whats not, but DO pick up true news from it. 7.) Given what we established above, your concerns are unfounded, as its not what is happening in America. Now, go do your homework.

Not according to Reggie it won't.

And you posted that link right as I was replying. Bastard.

Proof? Link? I'd say a more likely result is this: People that don't care at all about politics, will never care, and did never care, don't watch the Daily Show. You have to have some political knowledge to watch and enjoy the Daily Show, and you also have to have some interest in politics to do so. These are the people who follow politics from other sources. The Daily Show viewers are already politically-inclined people who follow the news, and can tell the difference. Why? The first reason is, there is no shortage of comedy programs that come on at that time. Here in Austin, for example, the show comes on at 10:00pm (as labeled comedy by Yahoo! TV). Other comedy programs on from 10:00pm-11:00pm on Thursdays (during Daily Show/Colbert Report): - The Simpsons - Hogan's Heroes - Will & Grace - M*A*S*H - The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air - It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Usually at least 1 movie thats a comedy - Seinfeld - Family Guy - Late Shows - Everybody Loves Raymond - Becker - I love Lucy - The Planet's Funniest Animals - I Married Joan - Three's Company And thats just on regular cable which you'd get with Comedy Central. Not to mention all of the other options out there that aren't Comedy. And this changes based upon what day it is. On some days, theres better competition for the Daily Show & Colbert Report. So if someone doesn't care about politics, its really easy for them to find another show that they actually are interested in, whether its comedy or something else. In fact, there is evidence to back up this claim. According to Annenburg, a leading political research division of UPenn, this is the case. Report. They found, and I quote, "People who watch the Daily Show are more interested in the Presidential Campaign...". Another part of it to back up what I'm saying: So, in fact, your concerns are unfounded, and are actually the opposite of what is happening in America and with the Daily Show audience.

The appropriate response to anything Coulter, Franken, or any other one of those bozos have to say should be: lol, Coulter.

Not really, sounds like a typical After Dark screensaver to me.

The point is still that Colbert didn't edit it to look a lot worse then it actually was.

Yeah, I thought it was awesome that he did that. He gets my respect for having a sense of humor.

Except that everything besides your eyes says different. Including the news articles and the congressman himself.

Yeah, I know, the Daily Show does it a lot. It was my understanding that Colbert does it much less though.

1. Cocaine is indeed fun, I'd think! 2. To be fair to Colbert, his interviews like that aren't actually edited. The congressman also said he DID say it and he WAS joking, when they tried to create a stink about it. There *are* parts of those types of shoes that are edited, but that wasn't one.

Okay, since I haven't read it so far, I have to make the obligatory answer: Rob johnson. Come on, it relaly took this long to say it?

Nice one, Rich.

Tis the motivation behind all of this.

I see that the Sentinel hasn't improve at all during the 3 years I've been gone from Orlando.

Yeah, have a lot of sh-- to do, gotta help my GF move and have stuff for classes. Hopefully next week!

Throughout Lebanon's recent history, we have witnessed a nation struggling to convert to Democracy in the Middle East, faced with many obstacles to prevent this from happening. It is to the point today that Hizbollah has so much control, I would make the argument that Lebanon is turning back into a complete authoritarian regime, elections or not. It is important that the US understands why democracy in Lebanon is failing. If so, the US can work to prevent these same failings in Iraq, where we (the US) are responsible for building up a successful democracy. First and foremost, political parties have always been weak in Lebanese politics. According to the Wikipedia article on Lebanese political parties, "No single party has ever won more than 12.5 percent of the seats in the National Assembly, and no coalition of parties has won more than 35 percent." Thats bad, extremely bad. As much as American's and TBD posters hate them, strong political parties are a necessity to democracy, and especially the democritization process. Weak political parties and weak government can lead to huge openings for the opposition to take control. And you can see that in Lebanon. The central government is weak partly because political parties have done such a bad job. Rival parties have formed coalitions to just keep the government going, and unfortunately, this means that the central government remains weak. Strong political parties lead to stronger government, as the ability to get stuff done and strengthen themselves plays a huge role in whether or not it will happen. Governments start weak, then build themselves up both diplomatically and militarily. The weaker political parties are, the more influence outside governments can have. Syria has built up Hez'bollah into both a political party protecting south Lebanon, and a strong military force. So strong, in fact, that H'b has a larger military then the Lebanese government does, and can force its will upon Lebanon. There are several important lessons to be learned: 1.) Strong, pro-democratic parties need to exist from the very early stages of a democracy. 2.) The central government needs to build up enough power to be able to effectively protect its citizens. 3.) The central government needs to be strong enough to protect the democratic institutions from take-over by force. 4.) The country needs to be protected from outside influences as much as possible. So what does this mean for Iraq? Quite frankly, it means that we aren't doing everything needed. I'm unimpressed with the U.S.' ability to prop up a couple of pro-democratic political parties in Iraq. The widespread United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition in power in Iraq, includes Hezbollah Movement in Iraq, Islamic Action Organisation, and 21 others. Its quite wide and far reaching, and I wonder about its ability to strengthen the central government against terrorists trying to gain control. Bush has done a decent job at building up the others structures in Iraq like the nation's defenses. However, the military isn't the only thing that needs to be built up - the structures of democracy need to be as well. Elections while the country's parties are a mess is a strong first step toward an anti-US government, something that none of us want.

Nah. I'm usually gone all day Saturday to DKR-Texas Memorial Stadium, so I don't have a chance to watch too many on TV. I'll prolly get center ice though this year.

Sucks. Taylor was a pretty good player, he was quick and could shake and bake. Not cut out for the NFL at all, but was a fun player to switch up the pace down here. Yeah, during 04 (Benson's last year), he had an injury that knocked him out for the year (ankle injury I think) in the 2nd game of the season. Got a medical redshirt from that.

He won't get it. Too many of the large, influential democratic donators are pissed at him for leaving about $14 mill (I think that was the figure) in the war chest after the last elections, and vowed never to donate to him again. He won't have the money to compete with the other nominees. Once the primaries start, he's going to get squished like a bug. I think the statements were more to get his base in Mass out to vote in the mid-terms, people will have forgotten about this crap by the time 08 rolls around. Speaking of nominees, check out this little site for McCain, that I saw on polling report: http://www.straighttalkamerica.com/default.aspx "Authorized and Paid for by Straight Talk America - Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee" Obviously this isn't a site to promote McCain and a presidential bid!

Read these quotes, then realize the context. He's trying to get nominated again for 08. The guy's flat out horrible at playing politics at a national level, isn't he? He's got the ambiguous part down..... WAY too down.

Both are upgrades over last year's Miami team.

Not this week unfortunately.