Magox Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 I watch and I'm not a "progressive," by which I suppose you mean liberal Democrat. And as Democrats, which they are, so what? Is trying to take the debate out of the hands of the people at the extremes who can't even have a discussion a bad thing? The "Obama is a Muslim trying to turn us into an Islamic state" and "Bush is a tool of Haliburton" crowds HAVE dominated the debate for too long. I do not see that a Democrat or Republican rally calling attention to that fact is a problem. If the Democrats harness an energy to perhaps start to rid themselves of their extremes, isn't that a good thing? Mind you, I don't know that they will rid themselves of their extremes any more than I believe that the Republicans can live up to their new agenda after so many years of having the same agenda and ignoring it. But in both the Stewart Rally and the Contract w/America v2, there are grains of hope. You're missing the point that I am trying to make. You suggest that they are the voice of reason with no political motive when in fact that is not the case. They are working with MoveOn.org, Democratic political aides, HuffPo and other groups in how they can motivate the base. Most people consider Progressives to be on the left side of extremism as others consider the Tea Partiers on the right side of extremism. Considering that close 2/3 of their viewers are on the left side of extremism and that they are working along with political groups in order to COUNTER Beck's rally, it is more than evident that their motivations aren't what they purport it to be, which is to "to restore sanity" and "protest against extremism and bellicose rhetoric on the left and the right" They know who the MAJORITY of their viewers are Democratic supporters : That’s because, according to a Pew Research Center study released on Sunday, 58% of Daily Show and 64% of Colbert Report viewers described themselves as progressive, with 69% and 68% of them, respectively, approving of President Barack Obama’s job performance. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42359.html#ixzz10MvWuRSP They know that if they can motivate their viewers, which will be the one's who attend the rally, then the vast majority of those who attend will go out and vote for Democratic politicians. It's not that difficult to understand. The fact that this rally is taking place on the 30th of october, the weekend before the elections is all a reasonable thinking person needs to know in regards to their intentions. There is nothing wrong with trying to motivate your base, that's not my issue. The issue is that they pretend to be middle of the road and that this isn't politically motivated and that they want to "restore sanity" even though this 'get out to vote' rally is something that is being worked ALONG with the very same people that he is criticizing such as HUFFPO and Moveon.org. That's the point that I am making
Peace Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 You're missing the point that I am trying to make. You suggest that they are the voice of reason with no political motive when in fact that is not the case. They are working with MoveOn.org, Democratic political aides, HuffPo and other groups in how they can motivate the base. Most people consider Progressives to be on the left side of extremism as others consider the Tea Partiers on the right side of extremism. Considering that close 2/3 of their viewers are on the left side of extremism and that they are working along with political groups in order to COUNTER Beck's rally, it is more than evident that their motivations aren't what they purport it to be, which is to "to restore sanity" and "protest against extremism and bellicose rhetoric on the left and the right" I actually did not say that. They are clearly Dem-leaning shows. If they fire up their "base" while at the same time rallying people around the cry of being reasonable and not extremist D-bags, I don't see it as a problem. When the Tea PArtiers hold an "anti-gov't spending" rally, am I supposed to say their rally is wrong just because the vast majority of Tea Partiers are Republicans who keep voting in the Republican spending machine? Answer: no. That message,reducing spending, is a good one. And the Stewart rally's topic highlights this. People see a Dem rally and knee jerk that the Dems are socialist anti-American Muslims...instead of seeing a rally around a topic with considering, ie, that we don't have to keep allowing the moronic extremes to rule the debate.
The Big Cat Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 I get excited before I attend a comedy/entertainment event, too. Are they going to have girls jumping on trampolines? Ooops, wrong rally. Oops wrong decade, homeboy.
Dante Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 Oops wrong decade, homeboy. yeah but Adam and Jimmy would be so much funnier at a rally than the other two schmoes.
/dev/null Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 Oops wrong decade, homeboy. Girls on Trampolines > Moment of Zen
The Big Cat Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 yeah but Adam and Jimmy would be so much funnier at a rally than the other two schmoes. Girls on Trampolines > Moment of Zen I see no room for debate in either of these statements.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 Girls on Trampolines > Moment of Zen Girls on Trampolines = Jackie Treehorn
drnykterstein Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 Why don't people realize that these guys are comedians? I don't get it. I don't get your question. Have you ever met someone who says that Stewart is not a comedian? The whole point is: Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Gingritch, Hannity, are also entertainers. The fant that their followers do not realize this is scary. After thinking a little bit more about my original post I realized that I really phrased things in an immature way. Sorry about that, just blowing off some steam in not the best way. I really meant to say that I'm excited about this rally. It shouldn't be about hate on either side. Sorry again for misrepresenting what I believe Stewart is trying to accomplish with this rally. Don't let the morons get to you. This forum is filled with crazy right wing zombies. Any praise for something that is not Fox News they are going to think is crazy.
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 Don't let the morons get to you. This forum is filled with crazy right wing zombies. Any praise for something that is not Fox News they are going to think is crazy. Point of note, Byrd Bath: conner is pretty much universally considered this board's pet idiot. HE thinks that's a partisan bias. It's not. It's an anti-idiot bias.
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2010 Posted September 23, 2010 Don't let the morons get to you. This forum is filled with crazy right wing zombies. Any praise for something that is not Fox News they are going to think is crazy. Hello pot, this is kettle. The only way you could be a bigger assclown is if you ate a truckload of Krispy Kremes and legally changed your name to Hyp O. Crite. There are plenty of tardo lefty boards all over the internet where you get to pretend everyone who doesn't agree with your ridiculous takes is a "crazy right wing zombie". Feel free to take your victim comple... er...business there.
drnykterstein Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 Sorry, just excited that rational people like Stewart actually exist. Also, why is almost everyone on this board republican/conservative? I thought that Buffalo was traditionally intelligent when it came to politics. I've pondered this question myself. It's a very interesting question, and I'd love to know the answer. The best theory I've been able to come up with is that the anomaly is due to football, and not Buffalo. Most of the intellectuals I know do not watch sports at all. Much less than that would they be found watching football, (one of the most violent sports).
Rob's House Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) Sorry, just excited that rational people like Stewart actually exist. Also, why is almost everyone on this board republican/conservative? I thought that Buffalo was traditionally intelligent when it came to politics. One of the most refreshing aspects of this board is that the right of center crowd around here, for the most part, is comprised of independent thinkers who tend not to walk in lock step with the Republican party. The common theme is a distrust of big government, which is hardly a fanatical point of view. Girls on Trampolines = Jackie Treehorn Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man. Edited September 24, 2010 by Rob's House
drnykterstein Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) One of the most refreshing aspects of this board is that the right of center crowd around here, for the most part, is comprised of independent thinkers. The common theme amongst them is a distrust of big government, which is hardly a fanatical point of view. Yeah here is the problems.. (and I know you are not smart enough to understand even before I post) Progressives distrust government and big government. Your assumption that they don't is the tip of the iceberg. They do realize however that issues are far more complicated and require far more understanding and research that the information common media provides. Your though line is "Social security is going bankrupt and is bloated and corrupt, lets remove it". An intelligent progressive sees "Social security is not going bankrupt, despite the lies being told about it. It is however inefficient and susceptible to abuse. We should really work on refining the laws and procedures that govern the program in order to try to fix these problems. It's too bad the Republicans keep voting no and blocking everything in a calculated attempt to garner more votes instead of trying to actually help our country. That's really a shame, and possibly very frightening." Edited September 24, 2010 by conner
Rob's House Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) Yeah here is the problems.. (and I know you are not smart enough to understand even before I post) Progressives distrust government and big government. Your assumption that they don't is the tip of the iceberg. They do realize however that issues are far more complicated and require far more understanding and research that the information common media provides. Your though line is "Social security is going bankrupt and is bloated and corrupt, lets remove it". An intelligent progressive sees "Social security is not going bankrupt, despite the lies being told about it. It is however inefficient and susceptible to abuse. We should really work on refining the laws and procedures that govern the program in order to try to fix these problems. It's too bad the Republicans keep voting no and blocking everything in a calculated attempt to garner more votes instead of trying to actually help our country. That's really a shame, and possibly very frightening." It's called math, dipshit. Look into it. I know you think you're smart and your "ideas" are too nuanced and complex for the rest of us to understand. That you and the enlightened bunch you fawn over have some deep pragmatic understanding that can save the world if only you guys get to run our lives for us. Everything you suggest is !@#$ing stupid, has been tried repeatedly, and failed miserably. What's most impressive about you is your ability to maintain your arrogance despite the constant exposure of your ignorance. But please, maybe you can explain your brilliant philosophy on social security, or borrowing your way out of debt, or even better, I'm sure we could all benefit from your well informed analysis of the macroeconomic consequences of retaliatory trade tariffs. Edited September 24, 2010 by Rob's House
drnykterstein Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 It's called math, dipshit. Look into it. I know you think you're smart and your "ideas" are too nuanced and complex for the rest of us to understand. That you and the enlightened bunch you fawn over have some deep pragmatic understanding that can save the world if only you guys get to run our lives for us. Everything you suggest is !@#$ing stupid, has been tried repeatedly, and failed miserably. What's most impressive about you is your ability to maintain your arrogance despite the constant exposure of your ignorance. But please, maybe you can explain your brilliant philosophy on social security, or borrowing your way out of debt, or even better, I'm sure we could all benefit from your well informed analysis of the macroeconomic consequences of retaliatory trade tariffs. They aren't my ideas. But apparently they are too complex and nuanced for you otherwise you would not use such caveman like right wing marketing terms such as "big government" and "obamacare". Everything I suggest is succeeding well in many other countries. We are not the only nation state on the planet. The borrowing has nothing to do with reducing the debt. As good ol' Dick said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". And also many a well researched economists have said we have some room to grow the debt without dramatically effecting anything. When inflation and growth in the GDP are factored in, this is not the largest debt we've ever had. The 40's have us beat us with war spending and depression recovery. I know your caveman brain is thinking "is this guy saying we should grow the debt?". And this is why you are not smart. Of course we want the debt as small as possible. However when George Bush recessions cause huge economic downturns, emergency spending is needed to fix things. Since there is room to grow the debt without causing problems, and additionally government spending and money would indeed fix the economy -- well hey lets do it. It's practically a no-brainer. Unfortunate that you don't have one though.
Rob's House Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) They aren't my ideas. But apparently they are too complex and nuanced for you otherwise you would not use such caveman like right wing marketing terms such as "big government" and "obamacare". Everything I suggest is succeeding well in many other countries. We are not the only nation state on the planet. The borrowing has nothing to do with reducing the debt. As good ol' Dick said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". And also many a well researched economists have said we have some room to grow the debt without dramatically effecting anything. When inflation and growth in the GDP are factored in, this is not the largest debt we've ever had. The 40's have us beat us with war spending and depression recovery. I know your caveman brain is thinking "is this guy saying we should grow the debt?". And this is why you are not smart. Of course we want the debt as small as possible. However when George Bush recessions cause huge economic downturns, emergency spending is needed to fix things. Since there is room to grow the debt without causing problems, and additionally government spending and money would indeed fix the economy -- well hey lets do it. It's practically a no-brainer. Unfortunate that you don't have one though. You're a funny guy. You are correct that debt isn't categorically bad. However, at the levels we're running we're getting dangerously close to economic disaster. Your willingness to relive the depression is interesting. As far as govt spending to fix the economy; IF you are going that route, the non-retarded use the money productively. For instance, building a high speed rail or an interstate highway system to transport people and goods more efficiently thus increasing the net output of wealth. The retarded start "public works" projects where they repave freshly paved roads and other "shovel-ready" make-work jobs that don't create any net increase in wealth but rather just put paper fiat money in the hands of the non-productive. You're taking already scarce resources out of a shrinking pile and doling it out more freely to people who would otherwise be producing. P.S. I love that Dick Cheney is your economic guru. Edited September 24, 2010 by Rob's House
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 Yeah here is the problems.. (and I know you are not smart enough to understand even before I post) Progressives distrust government and big government. Your assumption that they don't is the tip of the iceberg. They do realize however that issues are far more complicated and require far more understanding and research that the information common media provides. Your though line is "Social security is going bankrupt and is bloated and corrupt, lets remove it". An intelligent progressive sees "Social security is not going bankrupt, despite the lies being told about it. It is however inefficient and susceptible to abuse. We should really work on refining the laws and procedures that govern the program in order to try to fix these problems. It's too bad the Republicans keep voting no and blocking everything in a calculated attempt to garner more votes instead of trying to actually help our country. That's really a shame, and possibly very frightening." Did your intelligent progressive Buddy's figure out how to punch a hole in a paper ballot yet? Or in the next election will I just be required to point a finger at a picture of whom I wish to vote for?[to make the process "fair" for all the motor voters]. "They do realize however that issues are far more complicated and require far more understanding and research that the information common media provides." From someone who quotes a 7 AM Saturday kiddies science show
drnykterstein Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) You're a funny guy. You are correct that debt isn't categorically bad. However, at the levels we're running we're getting dangerously close to economic disaster. Your willingness to relive the depression is interesting. As far as govt spending to fix the economy; IF you are going that route, the non-retarded use the money productively. For instance, building a high speed rail or an interstate highway system to transport people and goods more efficiently thus increasing the net output of wealth. The retarded start "public works" projects where they repave freshly paved roads and other "shovel-ready" make-work jobs that don't create any net increase in wealth but rather just put paper fiat money in the hands of the non-productive. You're taking already scarce resources out of a shrinking pile and doling it out more freely to people who would otherwise be producing. P.S. I love that Dick Cheney is your economic guru. Like this? http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0128/Obama-s-high-speed-rail-plan-Which-states-get-the-money Or perhaps you would be interested in how the Republicans tried to block that also.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082302037.html http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/01/28/tea-party-protests-obamas-high-speed-rail-in-florida/ http://reason.org/blog/show/floridas-high-speed-rail-route Like I said.. progressives try to solve problems, the Republicans try to block them for political gain. Edited September 24, 2010 by conner
drnykterstein Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) on more link to add to above.. http://mediamatters.org/research/200902180010 This is how the Republican strategists do it. They just make up complete lies in order to try to get their way. Edited September 24, 2010 by conner
RkFast Posted September 24, 2010 Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) on more link to add to above.. http://mediamatters.org/research/200902180010 This is how the Republican strategists do it. They just make up complete lies in order to try to get their way. How the !@#$ do you, with a straight face, rail on Fox and then use Media Matters for your sources? Seriously.....how? Youre either blindingly stupid, insane, or a troll pulling all our legs. Edited September 24, 2010 by RkFast
Recommended Posts