Last Night's Colbert Report with Nas

[OCinBuffalo]

What does dailykos have to do with Scott McClellan stating that as WH Press Secretary he fed Fox News commentators talking points?

So now you are too lazy to read your own link? That you posted? From Daily Kos?

 

I cut and pasted it right off the post you did there buddy: "http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/2...2417/118/557200"

 

Alaska Darin was right(something I don't say a lot) about you, you are a lazy bastard.

 

Oh, and btw, does this count as "stumping me" again? WTF was that?

[elegantelliotoffen]

The original poster's whining doesn't change the ratings, the overall view of America that you should do your own part first and not be allowed to be lazy, and neither does calling all the people who watch FOX "racists". Especially when you are talking about somebody like me, who goes out of their way to get info from multiple sources and multiple formats.

 

You do realize that the USA has a population of over 300 million and approximately 2 million of them (.66 %) watch Fox News every night? That's hardly the "overall view of America".

[elegantelliotoffen]

So now you are too lazy to read your own link? That you posted? From Daily Kos?

 

I cut and pasted it right off the post you did there buddy: "http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/2...2417/118/557200"

 

Alaska Darin was right(something I don't say a lot) about you, you are a lazy bastard.

 

Oh, and btw, does this count as "stumping me" again? WTF was that?

 

I never referred to any of the content on dailykos, I just used the link so people could view the McClellan video. Dailykos didn't produce the video. Dailykos didn't force McClellan to say that he delivered talking points to Fox News personalities.

[OCinBuffalo]

You do realize that the USA has a population of over 300 million and approximately 2 million of them (.66 %) watch Fox News every night? That's hardly the "overall view of America".

Nice attempt at using phony stats to make a comparison that is wholly invalid. Watch me do it properly so you can learn: of the % the 300 million who watch cable news channels on a regular basis, a significant majority of them watch FOX, and have been watching FOX for a long time. CNN had a head start in the 24 hours news business and MSNBC had the Microsoft web presence built in. Both started before FOX, yet both have had their market share taken away by FOX...almost fully in the case of MSNBC.

 

The premise laid out was that this is because most of America, and therefore most of the people who have the highest propensity to watch cable news, lean towards the right. I said that may be the case, however, I added that most people want to see the best. Hannity is the best on his side of the aisle at what he does, therefore his is on FOX. Tucker Carlson comes off like a lame-ass staffer at the cheap DC bar, and I have seen them there, and therefore he ended up on CNN and/or MSNBC.

 

Again, your lameness is not a shocker. But the fact that you would try to use stats incorrectly is a new low. Keep trying though, you are amusing me today and I have another call to get on so I can hear somebody else's poor attempt at using stats re: health care, and I am sure to be bored listening to that crap.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Nice attempt at using phony stats to make a comparison that is wholly invalid. Watch me do it properly so you can learn: of the % the 300 million who watch cable news channels on a regular basis, a significant majority of them watch FOX, and have been watching FOX for a long time. CNN had a head start in the 24 hours news business and MSNBC had the Microsoft web presence built in. Both started before FOX, yet both have had their market share taken away by FOX...almost fully in the case of MSNBC.

 

The premise laid out was that this is because most of America, and therefore most of the people who have the highest propensity to watch cable news, lean towards the right. I said that may be the case, however, I added that most people want to see the best. Hannity is the best on his side of the aisle at what he does, therefore his is on FOX. Tucker Carlson comes off like a lame-ass staffer at the cheap DC bar, and I have seen them there, and therefore he ended up on CNN and/or MSNBC.

 

Again, your lameness is not a shocker. But the fact that you would try to use stats incorrectly is a new low. Keep trying though, you are amusing me today and I have another call to get on so I can hear somebody else's poor attempt at using stats re: health care, and I am sure to be bored listening to that crap.

 

You still haven't refuted my assertion- How can Fox News embody the "overall view" of America when on average only 2 million of the countries 300 million people watch it nightly? Just because Fox News has largest viewership of the cable news channels doesn't mean it represents America's "overall view".

[OCinBuffalo]

I never referred to any of the content on dailykos, I just used the link so people could view the McClellan video. Dailykos didn't produce the video. Dailykos didn't force McClellan to say that he delivered talking points to Fox News personalities.

No and no, but Daily Kos, and tools like yourself, persist in trying to make a big issue out of what is clearly not a big issue. It's simple really, McCellan is pissed because:

1. He got fired because he sucked at his job

2. Bush didn't support his mom in a campaign

3. They wouldn't include him in the big stuff, because he sucked at his job

 

He needs money because:

1. He got fired

2. He is unlikely to work in politics again and he apparently has no job prospects

3. He did such a bad job nobody wants to hire him, like FOX did with Karl Rove. Most ex-press secretaries have a path beaten to their doors with job offers, not him, because he sucked at this job.

 

Now, I am not saying that everything he says is wrong. I am saying that if you take the above into context when you watch him on TV, like I did when this was a "big" issue for 2 days, you conclude that:

1. He's doing this for money

2. He needs it because this is the end for him = the best the can do elsewhere if he works hard and is lucky is middle management

3. He didn't really know what was going on because he wasn't "in the room".

4. We all knew the Bush plan for Iraq was questionable at best, terrible at worst, BEFORE the book came out. So...so what?

 

The fact that you spend your time on a propaganda website and use anything they say there as "factual" information is the key issue here and needs to be exposed for what it is = stupidity. Why? Because stupidity is a choice and others may not know where your "facts" are coming from.

[elegantelliotoffen]

No and no, but Daily Kos, and tools like yourself, persist in trying to make a big issue out of what is clearly not a big issue. It's simple really, McCellan is pissed because:

1. He got fired because he sucked at his job

2. Bush didn't support his mom in a campaign

3. They wouldn't include him in the big stuff, because he sucked at his job

 

He needs money because:

1. He got fired

2. He is unlikely to work in politics again and he apparently has no job prospects

3. He did such a bad job nobody wants to hire him, like FOX did with Karl Rove. Most ex-press secretaries have a path beaten to their doors with job offers, not him, because he sucked at this job.

 

Now, I am not saying that everything he says is wrong. I am saying that if you take the above into context when you watch him on TV, like I did when this was a "big" issue for 2 days, you conclude that:

1. He's doing this for money

2. He needs it because this is the end for him = the best the can do elsewhere if he works hard and is lucky is middle management

3. He didn't really know what was going on because he wasn't "in the room".

4. We all knew the Bush plan for Iraq was questionable at best, terrible at worst, BEFORE the book came out. So...so what?

 

1.He absolutely wasn't fired

2.He "wasn't in the room"? He was a close personal friend of GWB's back from their days in Texas! That's just another GOP talking point.

[OCinBuffalo]

You still haven't refuted my assertion- How can Fox News embody the "overall view" of America when on average only 2 million of the countries 300 million people watch it nightly? Just because Fox News has largest viewership of the cable news channels doesn't mean it represents America's "overall view".

Sure I have apples = dumptrucks boy! One isn't the same as the other. The people who watch cable news in general represent a small % of America. No different than the people who send their kids to Montessori school(first thing I thought of). IF you want to talk about the demographics of the cable news %(they are smarter, college-educated, successful) that is another thread.

 

And, the assertion that the country is right-leaning wasn't my idea. I said I thought it was possible, since most of us learn to do things for ourselves in this country as a part of our culture.

 

The poster's point was simple really: if you take any subset of the population, Montessori parents, or left-handed people, for example, the chances are they are going to lean right(presumably = watch FOX) is more likely because the country as a whole has a higher propensity to lean right. So, the other poster was saying that it's shouldn't be a surprise that, taking the subset of the 300 million who watch cable news, they are more likely to watch FOX as well.

 

I said that statistically that makes sense, if we are to believe that the overall views of the whole population tend to lean right. I have seen similar polls produce those results when "values" questions are asked, so there is no reason to believe otherwise.

 

The country leans right, too bad if you don't like it. It has nothing to do with me or my point.

 

I am saying that while the other guy might be right, FOX is simply better at giving the people what they want. Example: as much as you might "hate" Karl Rove, you sure as hell want to tune in to see what he says. Why? Because you know he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the science of politics. I'll put this in college terms for you: How in the hell else is GWB the President for 2 terms and the Democrats the A-hole? I can just see Rove on election night: "sweep 'em, a-hole!" FOX gets the best, Karl Rove is the best = Karl Rove works for FOX.

 

End of story.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Sure I have apples = dumptrucks boy! One isn't the same as the other. The people who watch cable news in general represent a small % of America. No different than the people who send their kids to Montessori school(first thing I thought of). IF you want to talk about the demographics of the cable news %(they are smarter, college-educated, successful) that is another thread.

 

And, the assertion that the country is right-leaning wasn't my idea. I said I thought it was possible, since most of us learn to do things for ourselves in this country as a part of our culture.

 

The poster's point was simple really: if you take any subset of the population, Montessori parents, or left-handed people, for example, the chances are they are going to lean right(presumably = watch FOX) is more likely because the country as a whole has a higher propensity to lean right. So, the other poster was saying that it's shouldn't be a surprise that, taking the subset of the 300 million who watch cable news, they are more likely to watch FOX as well.

 

I said that statistically that makes sense, if we are to believe that the overall views of the whole population tend to lean right. I have seen similar polls produce those results when "values" questions are asked, so there is no reason to believe otherwise.

 

The country leans right, too bad if you don't like it. It has nothing to do with me or my point.

 

I am saying that while the other guy might be right, FOX is simply better at giving the people what they want. Example: as much as you might "hate" Karl Rove, you sure as hell want to tune in to see what he says. Why? Because you know he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the science of politics. I'll put this in college terms for you: How in the hell else is GWB the President for 2 terms and the Democrats the A-hole? I can just see Rove on election night: "sweep 'em, a-hole!" FOX gets the best, Karl Rove is the best = Karl Rove works for FOX.

 

End of story.

 

I'm not sure if I read you.

 

Are you saying that the nightly cable news viewership is a sample which can then be projected onto the entire population much like a poll?

[OCinBuffalo]

1.He absolutely wasn't fired

2.He "wasn't in the room"? He was a close personal friend of GWB's back from their days in Texas! That's just another GOP talking point.

1. Nobody is ever "fired" who works for any Administration. In fact, they submit their resignations periodically and the Prez decides to accept them or not. This is a long standing tradition, for everybody, and saying otherwise is denying history and reality. The fact is he sucked at his job, everybody has said so, on both sides, and the independents. Playing word games doesn't change any of that, and trying to pretend like he quit is the DEMOCRATS talking points. What a shocker.

2. I'm sorry but I tend to believe guys who were actually there, like Karl Rove. They have every reason to discredit the guy, sure, but the facts are that they were there and whoever disagrees wasn't there. McCellan, otoh, has every reason to lie and make himself appear to be bigger than he really was-->$$$$. Taking either side fully at their word is retarded. The fact is that the guy consistently performed poorly, and if it was me, I wouldn't include him in much until he showed me he could handle what I gave him first. He never did a good job at any point, that is an undeniable fact. So, it stands to reason that they wouldn't include him in policy discussions for fear that he might say something stupid/hurtful to the President.

 

Are you that naive that I have to tell you what happens to people once they get near power/$$$, especially when they haven't been around it at all, and then are suddenly thrown into it at the DC level? Hell, Brutus was a close personal friend of Julius Ceasar! You want more historical examples, I got em. This is nothing new. What's new is that apparently there are people in this country who have stopped thinking things through before they arrive and an absolute opinion. Or, they go to daily Kos and have their opinion pre-ordered for them.

[elegantelliotoffen]

1. Nobody is ever "fired" who works for any Administration. In fact, they submit their resignations periodically and the Prez decides to accept them or not. This is a long standing tradition, for everybody, and saying otherwise is denying history and reality. The fact is he sucked at his job, everybody has said so, on both sides, and the independents. Playing word games doesn't change any of that, and trying to pretend like he quit is the DEMOCRATS talking points. What a shocker.

2. I'm sorry but I tend to believe guys who were actually there, like Karl Rove. They have every reason to discredit the guy, sure, but the facts are that they were there and whoever disagrees wasn't there. McCellan, otoh, has every reason to lie and make himself appear to be bigger than he really was-->$$$$. Taking either side fully at their word is retarded. The fact is that the guy consistently performed poorly, and if it was me, I wouldn't include him in much until he showed me he could handle what I gave him first. He never did a good job at any point, that is an undeniable fact. So, it stands to reason that they wouldn't include him in policy discussions for fear that he might say something stupid/hurtful to the President.

 

Are you that naive that I have to tell you what happens to people once they get near power/$$$, especially when they haven't been around it at all, and then are suddenly thrown into it at the DC level? Hell, Brutus was a close personal friend of Julius Ceasar! You want more historical examples, I got em. This is nothing new. What's new is that apparently there are people in this country who have stopped thinking things through before they arrive and an absolute opinion. Or, they go to daily Kos and have their opinion pre-ordered for them.

 

This sounds familiar. These are the same excuses that were given about Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill.

 

And what's all this about McClellan needing money and that no one would hire him. It seems like he found himself a pretty good gig after his resination.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm not sure if I read you.

 

Are you saying that the nightly cable news viewership is a sample which can then be projected onto the entire population much like a poll?

No, I am saying the polar opposite. I am saying that the polling data in question reflects that the country on the whole leans right. Let's call that the "top". If you call the various sub-sets of people, cable news viewers, left-handed people, Montessori parents, all random, non-politically divided groups(the opposite would be lesbian militant feminists) they might lean right as well. Let's call that the "bottom".

 

You are asking if the bottom can be used to project the top. I am saying no way, and I am also saying that this is the exact opposite of what is being suggested = the characteristics of the top are being used to project the characteristics of the bottom. IF the top leans right, chances are reasonable that all subsets lean right as well.

 

It stands to reason that if you take an arbitrary section out of that population = "bottom" = cable news viewers, that the "leans to the right" numbers will hold, because of the assumption that the group has the same spread/random people. It's hard to say that for certain because certain characteristics will be raised/lowered therefore possibly creating a bias in your sample. For example, in order to watch cable news, you probably have to be somewhat successful to: have the time/not work a second job, have cable not antenna, are educated, etc. This characteristics of the sub-set of the original set, all 300 American people, may or may not be reflective of the original set. So, statistically the data may be biased....

 

....or FOX just tends to do a better job giving people what they want. Which is my point.

[/dev/null]

This sounds familiar. These are the same excuses that were given about Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill.

 

Why would they make excuses about Paul O'Neill. He was never a Texas Ranger.

Now Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines on the other hand, W's got some explaining to do...

[elegantelliotoffen]

He needs money because:

1. He got fired

2. He is unlikely to work in politics again and he apparently has no job prospects

3. He did such a bad job nobody wants to hire him, like FOX did with Karl Rove. Most ex-press secretaries have a path beaten to their doors with job offers, not him, because he sucked at this job.

 

I love how you are just making stuff up as you go along. How can we take anything you say seriously again? McClellan got a job after his resignation as senior vice president for corporate and government affairs ofHHB Inc., but that lobbying gig couldn't have paid much right???

[elegantelliotoffen]

Why would they make excuses about Paul O'Neill. He was never a Texas Ranger.

Now Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines on the other hand, W's got some explaining to do...

 

Paul O'Neill always looked to me like the kind of guy whose hobby was videotaping himself having sex.

[OCinBuffalo]

This sounds familiar. These are the same excuses that were given about Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill.

You mean like the very same excuses given by the 30 Clinton staffers that "resigned". Or when his labor secretary got the axe? Some nuts even say that he was terminated and that the plane crash was phony. I have said it once and I will say it again, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. The job ain't easy. This is precisely why McCellan was passed over for it and Ari Fleischer was given the job to start out. It requires talent and experience. McClellan had neither, and he was let go because of it.

 

The funny part is this: Fleischer "resigned" in May 2003. They hauled his ass in to testify in the Plame case in July 2003, when McClellan had been press secretary for less than a month? But McClellan was "in the room" and "knew all about it"? How? He was working for Fleischer which means Fleischer he was in the room, not McCellan. Like I said, the guy was a wannabe who only got the job because Ari knew the s was about to hit the fan and bailed before it did. McClellan wasn't in the room for Plame, Iraq, 9/11, none of it. Ari was. So how the F would he presume to know what anybody said?

 

The facts are what they are, and apparently you haven't done the reading, again. And, no, I am not going to do your work for you.

[elegantelliotoffen]

You mean like the very same excuses given by the 30 Clinton staffers that "resigned". Or when his labor secretary got the axe? Some nuts even say that he was terminated and that the plane crash was phony. I have said it once and I will say it again, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. The job ain't easy. This is precisely why McCellan was passed over for it and Ari Fleischer was given the job to start out. It requires talent and experience. McClellan had neither, and he was let go because of it.

 

The funny part is this: Fleischer "resigned" in May 2003. They hauled his ass in to testify in the Plame case in July 2003, when McClellan had been press secretary for less than a month? But McClellan was "in the room" and "knew all about it"? How? He was working for Fleischer which means Fleischer he was in the room, not McCellan. Like I said, the guy was a wannabe who only got the job because Ari knew the s was about to hit the fan and bailed before it did. McClellan wasn't in the room for Plame, Iraq, 9/11, none of it. Ari was. So how the F would he presume to know what anybody said?

 

The facts are what they are, and apparently you haven't done the reading, again. And, no, I am not going to do your work for you.

 

Do you even know who Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill are, or what they had to say about GWB? Or are you just going to make more sh-- up like how McClellan was unable to find a job?

 

Ask your boyfriend Alaska Darin what happened when I checked up on his BS..............

[OCinBuffalo]

I love how you are just making stuff up as you go along. How can we take anything you say seriously again? McClellan got a job after his resignation as senior vice president for corporate and government affairs HHB Inc., but that lobbying gig couldn't have paid much right???

I'm talking about the big-time political game, or don't you know the difference? Which young congressman with presidential aspirations is going to hire him to be his press secretary? Which Senator? Answer: he is done. Hell, he probably couldn't even get a job at the county level.

 

I got offered a fat job at lobbying firm once because of I what I know. My cousin took one. Doesn't make either of us famous, in front of the camera, or seated at the same table with the main man. It makes us one more sorry-assed guy who talks, instead of does, for a living. Which is why my cousin got out eventually.

 

I am not saying any of it is desirable. I am saying that McCellan thinks it is, and he's not ever gonna get back to that job, ever. I also said that the best he could do was middle management. Working at a 20-person, little known, lobbying company as a VP is precisely that.

 

So where exactly am I saying anything wrong again? Karl Rove used his efforts and turned them into millions. Want to take a guess on how much money he makes with his next 5 books? How about what he pulls in on the lecture circuit?

 

Contrast that with McCellan maybe making the West-Texas middle school assembly circuit. Like I said, he is done in real politics, and he probably got the job he did because of his phonebook = the home phone numbers of departmental under-secretaries.

 

So he goes out and makes all the money he can while he still has a shred of relevance. He might as well say as much bad stuff as he can because the more of that there is, the more $$$ he gets. What's hard to understand here?

[Wacka]

The Dinosaur News Media (papers and the three main channels) is going extinct. Not because of the internet, but because they keep offering left slanted news.

 

An example: I live in the SF Bay area. We have 9 congressional districts. They were 8 dems and 1 Republican. The only Republican was my rep. From the primary , on every article about him was negative, while they didn't mention that his opponent had bankrupted two of his own companies. The result- no Republicans in the Bay Area.

 

At least the town elections are non-party. No affiliations listed.

[elegantelliotoffen]

I'm talking about the big-time political game, or don't you know the difference? Which young congressman with presidential aspirations is going to hire him to be his press secretary? Which Senator? Answer: he is done. Hell, he probably couldn't even get a job at the county level.

 

I got offered a fat job at lobbying firm once because of I what I know. My cousin took one. Doesn't make either of us famous, in front of the camera, or seated at the same table with the main man. It makes us one more sorry-assed guy who talks, instead of does, for a living. Which is why my cousin got out eventually.

 

I am not saying any of it is desirable. I am saying that McCellan thinks it is, and he's not ever gonna get back to that job, ever. I also said that the best he could do was middle management. Working at a 20-person, little known, lobbying company as a VP is precisely that.

 

So where exactly am I saying anything wrong again? Karl Rove used his efforts and turned them into millions. Want to take a guess on how much money he makes with his next 5 books? How about what he pulls in on the lecture circuit?

 

Contrast that with McCellan maybe making the West-Texas middle school assembly circuit. Like I said, he is done in real politics, and he probably got the job he did because of his phonebook = the home phone numbers of departmental under-secretaries.

 

So he goes out and makes all the money he can while he still has a shred of relevance. He might as well say as much bad stuff as he can because the more of that there is, the more $$$ he gets. What's hard to understand here?

 

Your spinning is making me dizzy........just keep making sh-- up...........

 

McClellan also worked here.

 

So now you can join your boyfriend Alaska Darin as another blowhard whose rants can't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny!