Presenting: what I consider a really great interview with Jon Stewart
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/40141311#40141311
Jon talks about
(spoiler warning?)
- his intentions for the rally to restore sanity and/or fear: it was aimed more at the news media than at partisan politics
- what's wrong with cable news: they have elevated red vs blue as the primary conflict in America, which Jon thinks is incorrect
- What does Jon think the real conflict in America is? corruption vs noncorruption
- Jon is a bit touchy about the accusation that Bush is a war criminal. He thinks "war criminal" is a word for people like Pol Pot, and that Bush's blunderings were not intentionally deceitful - Bush honestly did think he was gonna find WMDs in Iraq and isn't actually as EVIL as the people at MSNBC often make him out to be
- Jon talks about the difference between his job and news' job. Maddow believes Jon is in the same boat as cable news because people treat his show like news. Jon insists that what he's doing is outside politics, like a monkey throwing fruit at it. (correlation: Roger Ebert is not part of the movie game. Because he's not making movies, he's just commenting on them) Jon describes himself as being part of a long tradition of satirists with well defined rules and boundaries totally separate from news reporting
The above link is a full
48 minute uncut version
I had some trouble watching it due to load speeds on my netbook, so I watched it in 4 chunks on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlcRQjdcqNo&feature=related <--there's part 1
this is the version which appeared on Maddow's show.
Since when was "I believed I was doing the right thing" a defense against war crimes? On that basis, Hitler wasn't necessarily a war criminal because he really believed Jews were plotting to rule the world and eliminate the Aryan race through interbreeding.
He also admits to ordering torture. On that basis alone he's a war criminal. Stewart should stop with the strawman bullshit, he's no better when he does this than the people he mocks on his show. Willful and continual ignorance of the evidence.
here's the clip specifically regarding Bush et al
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lRAO4AvSr4
and this particular bit of discourse isn't Jon's most well-articulated moment... but his intent isn't to defend Bush so much as to challenge the black vs white depiction of him. He is trying to point out that while we on the left agree that waterboarding is torture, is actually a gray area, probably more nuanced than the folks at MSNBC have handled it. It's part of a larger point about how cable news promotes tribalism by invalidating interpretations outside of their narrative.
Rachel disagrees with him in a number of places -- primarily she objects to the equivalence he draws between Fox News and MSNBC. I think they both make some strong points throughout. Jon tends to cut her off quite a bit though, which is actually becoming quite normal for him. :p
Actually, it's considered torture by US and international law. And has been accepted as such for at least a century. It really is that black and white. It's not a "left versus right" thing, a dichotomy Stewart is actually perpetuating rather than undermining with his comments. It's been framed as a left/right thing by torture proponents, to turn it into the same kind of "he says, she says, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but we couldn't rightly say" kind of debate, as if the decision to torture were on a level to either increase welfare spending or engage in tax cuts.
I watch a decent amount of MSNBC. Mostly Matthews and Olbermann, and I've never really got the sense from them that they are plugging away hard at the "war criminal" angle. I don't think it is nearly as extreme as Jon seems to be portraying it. Certainly, the judgment of Bush is harsh and pretty damning, but I feel they stop short of really pressing the "war criminal" tag.
I do think there is a bit of a false equivalency between MSNBC and Fox News. Certainly there is a similarity in partisanship and overall ideological leaning. However, MSNBC, in my experience, is far more critical of its "team" than Fox News is of theirs. That is, MSNBC has had some fairly critical reporting on Obama and the Obama administration. Granted, some of it is form the "not liberal enough" perspective. But you really didn't see much from Fox News pointed at Bush. Not even a "not conservative enough" perspective.
I certainly appreciate what Jon is trying to do and I think he does have some pretty valid points and criticisms of the media. but I think pinning MSNBC to Fox News is done on a basis that is too general and casual. And of course, he also has to factor in the end user, the viewers, who drive what happens. The viewers obviously like the reporting enough that they are still tuning in.
These cable outlets aren't going to change until the audience changes.
Ironically, Stewart is doing the exact same thing he is criticizing the media of - presenting false equivalencies. "Oh, well, yeah, of course FOX are bad, but just look at this group of opposite yet equal extremists at MSNBC!" As if the hippies at MSNBC and their pet causes (Code Pink etc) had anything near the sway over the Democrats that the Teabaggers apparently do with the Republicans. He totally ignores the actual impact of insane policies on the right versus insane policies on the left to paint himself as the Only Sane Man, holding the reasonable centre and rational discourse against all would-be wreckers.
It's not like anyone is even moving to prosecute Bush as a war criminal. Only the Teabaggers seems to have any chance at actually ramming through their policy at the national level.
Quote from: Subetai on November 17, 2010, 03:54:17 PM
Ironically, Stewart is doing the exact same thing he is criticizing the media of - presenting false equivalencies. "Oh, well, yeah, of course FOX are bad, but just look at this group of opposite yet equal extremists at MSNBC!" As if the hippies at MSNBC and their pet causes (Code Pink etc) had anything near the sway over the Democrats that the Teabaggers apparently do with the Republicans. He totally ignores the actual impact of insane policies on the right versus insane policies on the left to paint himself as the Only Sane Man, holding the reasonable centre and rational discourse against all would-be wreckers.
It's not like anyone is even moving to prosecute Bush as a war criminal. Only the Teabaggers seems to have any chance at actually ramming through their policy at the national level.
Maybe we should try to get something like this message shot back to Stewart.
That being reasonable isn't staying with the overton window and pretending it has not moved, and that he is presenting false equivalencies.
I'll open up a new thread on this in OMF when I'm not bogged down with work.
It probably wont work, as Stewart seems convinced that the kind of people who would say that are left wing extremists and cranks.
Quote from: Subetai on November 17, 2010, 04:28:48 PM
It probably wont work, as Stewart seems convinced that the kind of people who would say that are left wing extremists and cranks.
In other words, he's pulled a Carville and wimped out on us.
Is he shacking up with Victoria Jackson?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 17, 2010, 04:28:48 PM
It probably wont work, as Stewart seems convinced that the kind of people who would say that are left wing extremists and cranks.
In other words, he's pulled a Carville and wimped out on us.
Yup. Once you consider "being evenhanded" more important than telling the truth, you're not a journalist.
Of course, Stewart says he isn't a journalist, he's a satirist. Apart from trying to have it both ways, that makes it even worse, as a satirist needs to be so utterly precise in their statements and actions they would put a journalist (a proper one, not the paid courtiers most well known "journalists" actually are) to shame.
Colbert is much better at this. I'm sure he's lightning quick when he needs to be, but I also bet he never appears anywhere in public without having prepared for every detail of his encounter, and considering the impact of each and every word he uses.
I agree with you about a lot of this, but to play devil's advocate--
I think the overall point he makes in the course of the interview is not about how left wingers are just as extreme or bad as right wingers,
but that we are getting overly focused on the tension between political parties - and news media serves this.
The Red State / Blue State thing is a relatively new construction, created by CNN to make sense of elections. By being fed through the 24-hour news cycle it has become the primary character of American discourse.
Jon doesn't think that these are actually the two sides we should be focusing on. He thinks thinks that the public would be better served if the newsmedia framed their discussion in terms of corruption vs noncorruption.
it doesn't really sit well with a point he makes about how Fox News isn't partisan, but ideological.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 05:12:52 PM
it doesn't really sit well with a point he makes about how Fox News isn't partisan, but ideological.
That is kind of hard to reconcile when you look at some of the people on the Fox News payroll.
Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee
Seems kind of partisan from where I'm sitting.
you can be ideological without being partisan, but you can't be partisan without espousing the ideologies that make up the (seemingly) make up the party.
I'll preface this by saying this might not be the best example but it's the best, most recent one I can think of.
California has gone democratic at the national level since the early 90's and is I believe considered by most people to be fairly liberal. Yet when the vote came to ban gay marriage, it went the other way than many would expect based on voting history for the last 20 years. Democrats and people who identify as independent but lean left more than 50% of the time must have parted with partisanship and voted their ideology, which is not as liberal as some in the party would have us believe. Liberals who were against the ban will tell you that it was the Right, but really if that were the case and there was such a strong Right voting block still in California, you'd think it would have shown at the national level more often.
he's wrong about fox and right about MSNBC IMHO.. they're both partisan, and therefore ideologically partisan.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 05:33:48 PM
you can be ideological without being partisan, but you can't be partisan without espousing the ideologies that make up the (seemingly) make up the party.
I disagree with this. In fact I think it's the opposite.
Partisanism tends to be more tribalistic, "us vs them" kind of mentality. I see it dealing with more with people and individuals within groups then anything else.
Ideology is much more difficult to grasp since it deals with something that is suppose to be bigger then reality. That your group is inspiring to something in the beyond. So it has both tribalism and conviction.
So in a way I actually agree with Stuart here. I think the different is MSNBC is suppose to be partisan, FOX is suppose to be ideological.
stewart defends his point about fox being ideological (as opposed to partisan) by pointing out that they would be quick to embrace Lieberman if they had the opportunity
and the right wing is split right now - it's hard to be coherently partisan while there's a battle for what that party even represents. A lot of people on the right are trying to push out Palin et al and fox does not support them.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 17, 2010, 06:12:52 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 05:33:48 PM
you can be ideological without being partisan, but you can't be partisan without espousing the ideologies that make up the (seemingly) make up the party.
I disagree with this. In fact I think it's the opposite.
Partisanism tends to be more tribalistic, "us vs them" kind of mentality. I see it dealing with more with people and individuals within groups then anything else.
Ideology is much more difficult to grasp since it deals with something that is suppose to be bigger then reality. That your group is inspiring to something in the beyond. So it has both tribalism and conviction.
So in a way I actually agree with Stuart here. I think the different is MSNBC is suppose to be partisan, FOX is suppose to be ideological.
I'm having trouble determining where exactly you disagree, but here are my thoughts.
adherents to an ideology can be just as us vs them. The difference as I see it, is that while partisans often share the same ideology, it's not a requirement of a positive test for partisanship. Partisans who might disagree on certain ideologies of the party as a whole (national platform) will still "vote a straight ticket" in reflection of their partisan politics. Ideologues would part from their party in defense of their beliefs.
Ideologies also do not have to be bigger than reality, even if they often are. They can be achievable given their persuasiveness.
It's all tribal and there's conviction in both. By definition, a party is more than one person, and you wont find many ideologies that only one person believes, even if that's where conceivably any ideology would have to start, in the mind of a single person.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 06:21:01 PM
stewart defends his point about fox being ideological (as opposed to partisan) by pointing out that they would be quick to embrace Lieberman if they had the opportunity
and the right wing is split right now - it's hard to be coherently partisan while there's a battle for what that party even represents. A lot of people on the right are trying to push out Palin et al and fox does not support them.
People automatically assume that it's a talking piece for the republicans but really it's a question of who is driving who.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 06:21:01 PM
stewart defends his point about fox being ideological (as opposed to partisan) by pointing out that they would be quick to embrace Lieberman if they had the opportunity
Well, you could argue the same for MSNBC who would embrace someone like Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chaffee when they have an opportunity. But I think it is fair to say that Fox News has many more direct connections with the GOP through their paid staff than MSNBC does with the Democratic Party. So I guess that is where I derive the view of FNC being partisan.
Quoteand the right wing is split right now - it's hard to be coherently partisan while there's a battle for what that party even represents. A lot of people on the right are trying to push out Palin et al and fox does not support them.
I dunno, I think it's more the GOP establishment trying to push her out simply because they know she is a guaranteed loser if she became the GOP nominee for 2012. Otherwise, I think they are glad to have her as a lightning rod.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 06:39:30 PM
The difference as I see it, is that while partisans often share the same ideology, it's not a requirement of a positive test for partisanship. Partisans who might disagree on certain ideologies of the party as a whole (national platform) will still "vote a straight ticket" in reflection of their partisan politics. Ideologues would part from their party in defense of their beliefs.
You kind of contradicted your former statement
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 06:39:30 PM
Ideologies also do not have to be bigger than reality, even if they often are. They can be achievable given their persuasiveness.
Ideologies are by definition based on something seen as "Ideal".
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 17, 2010, 07:02:30 PM
I dunno, I think it's more the GOP establishment trying to push her out simply because they know she is a guaranteed loser if she became the GOP nominee for 2012. Otherwise, I think they are glad to have her as a lightning rod.
It seems every election cycle there's someone to lower the bar even more though
:lulz:
It's going to funny to see where it ends
Palin is becoming more of a Rasputin figure. She can influence the gullible masses with twitter and facebook posts, which can shiv shove the argument in a certain direction, but it would be improbable for her to win an election.
Also, I fully believe she could be poisoned, stabbed, shot, and thrown in a river, and she'd survive.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 17, 2010, 07:02:30 PM
Well, you could argue the same for MSNBC who would embrace someone like Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chaffee when they have an opportunity. But I think it is fair to say that Fox News has many more direct connections with the GOP through their paid staff than MSNBC does with the Democratic Party. So I guess that is where I derive the view of FNC being partisan.
I dunno, I think it's more the GOP establishment trying to push her out simply because they know she is a guaranteed loser if she became the GOP nominee for 2012. Otherwise, I think they are glad to have her as a lightning rod.
I assume you mean paid contributors who are members of the Republican party. How can you be sure that a majority of paid contributors for CNBC and MSNBC are not members of the Democratic party? Fox certainly employs more previous primary candidates for commentary, but really the pickings on the Democratic side for commentary were slim IMO. Howard Dean is on there often enough.
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians. They've always rejected her and that will not change. Say all you want about how small a voice they represent, there are quite a few of them now occupying local seats and chair positions nationwide that in previous years would have gone to Bush Sr and Bill Kristol type republicans. Whether they're able to hold it and do anything with it is still up in the air. Breaking that ceiling at the state level has always been a bitch.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 17, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 06:39:30 PM
The difference as I see it, is that while partisans often share the same ideology, it's not a requirement of a positive test for partisanship. Partisans who might disagree on certain ideologies of the party as a whole (national platform) will still "vote a straight ticket" in reflection of their partisan politics. Ideologues would part from their party in defense of their beliefs.
You kind of contradicted your former statement
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 06:39:30 PM
Ideologies also do not have to be bigger than reality, even if they often are. They can be achievable given their persuasiveness.
Ideologies are by definition based on something seen as "Ideal".
Hmm, didn't intend for that to seem contradictory. I'll see if I can rework it on a break.
I think you may be confusing the word ideology with some other concept. the root of ideology is "idea" and has to pass several test to be considered true, and nothing to do with being ideal to anyone person or group.
Either way your main problem is, well lets take MSNBC for instance is basically owned by Microsoft and General Electric and I dont know how much Comcast owns now. It what I said before... who's driving who here.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 17, 2010, 07:13:54 PM
Palin is becoming more of a Rasputin figure. She can influence the gullible masses with twitter and facebook posts, which can shiv shove the argument in a certain direction, but it would be improbable for her to win an election.
Also, I fully believe she could be poisoned, stabbed, shot, and thrown in a river, and she'd survive.
If Palin were to run and if she were to win.....holee fuck....maybe I'm overreacting but that would seem like a canary in the cave moment.
Or am I being charitable to suggest the canary is still alive?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 17, 2010, 07:13:54 PM
Palin is becoming more of a Rasputin figure. She can influence the gullible masses with twitter and facebook posts, which can shiv shove the argument in a certain direction, but it would be improbable for her to win an election.
Also, I fully believe she could be poisoned, stabbed, shot, and thrown in a river, and she'd survive.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 08:38:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
you mean Arlin "Patriot Act signer, guy who added that provision that removed the 120 day limit on interim appointments by the Attorney General, also voted for the ARRA stimulus" Spector? He quit the Republican party and was subsequently rejected by the Democrats.
I stand by what I said.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 08:38:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
you mean Arlin "Patriot Act signer, guy who added that provision that removed the 120 day limit on interim appointments by the Attorney General, also voted for the ARRA stimulus" Spector? He quit the Republican party and was subsequently rejected by the Democrats.
I stand by what I said.
Of course you do. We can't run around holding Mrs Sarah responsible for her actions, or Steele for his. It wouldn't be right.
And we're all stupid as fuck, and can't remember things that happened 2 years ago.
Spector quit because he was told he was insufficiently conservative, and his party was not only not going to help him in the primary, they were going to fund someone to run against him.
But why let a fact or two get in the way, when Mrs Palin's honor is at stake?
Also, he wasn't rejected from the democratic party.
Your facts are assprone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 08:38:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
you mean Arlin "Patriot Act signer, guy who added that provision that removed the 120 day limit on interim appointments by the Attorney General, also voted for the ARRA stimulus" Spector? He quit the Republican party and was subsequently rejected by the Democrats.
I stand by what I said.
Of course you do. We can't run around holding Mrs Sarah responsible for her actions, or Steele for his. It wouldn't be right.
And we're all stupid as fuck, and can't remember things that happened 2 years ago.
Spector quit because he was told he was insufficiently conservative, and his party was not only not going to help him in the primary, they were going to fund someone to run against him.
But why let a fact or two get in the way, when Mrs Palin's honor is at stake?
where the fuck is the sigh emoticon?
where you get that I'm somehow defending Sarah Palin is beyond me. The fight might have been co-opted by the same religious rights from Fallwells "Moral Majority" but it wasn't started by them.
As someone who was actually on the ground, participating and pushing and supporting local libertarian candidates to precinct heads and local office during this time period, I'm giving you first hand information gleaned from conversations with many MANY people, not shit I read off of Wonket or wherever this crap about it being Sarah Palin's movement from the start got started.
National party politics took it over and are still trying to get it to conform to what they want it to be. It started much smaller and with high hopes, however unrealistic once you get past the state level.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:03:22 PM
Also, he wasn't rejected from the democratic party.
Your facts are assprone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter
wasn't re-elected to their party. Didn't say the kicked him out.
I get the feeling you do that on purpose.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:08:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 08:38:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
you mean Arlin "Patriot Act signer, guy who added that provision that removed the 120 day limit on interim appointments by the Attorney General, also voted for the ARRA stimulus" Spector? He quit the Republican party and was subsequently rejected by the Democrats.
I stand by what I said.
Of course you do. We can't run around holding Mrs Sarah responsible for her actions, or Steele for his. It wouldn't be right.
And we're all stupid as fuck, and can't remember things that happened 2 years ago.
Spector quit because he was told he was insufficiently conservative, and his party was not only not going to help him in the primary, they were going to fund someone to run against him.
But why let a fact or two get in the way, when Mrs Palin's honor is at stake?
where the fuck is the sigh emoticon?
where you get that I'm somehow defending Sarah Palin is beyond me. The fight might have been co-opted by the same religious rights from Fallwells "Moral Majority" but it wasn't started by them.
As someone who was actually on the ground, participating and pushing and supporting local libertarian candidates to precinct heads and local office during this time period, I'm giving you first hand information gleaned from conversations with many MANY people, not shit I read off of Wonket or wherever this crap about it being Sarah Palin's movement from the start got started.
National party politics took it over and are still trying to get it to conform to what they want it to be. It started much smaller and with high hopes, however unrealistic once you get past the state level.
You're giving me unverifiable anecdotal SECOND HAND, hearsay bullshit, when I can just look at direct quotes from Steele, Palin, and Specter.
And link me to the post where I referenced Wonkett? Thanks in advance...Until you provide such a link, take your strawman bullshit to someone who'll listen to it.
TGRR,
Has no time for the dishonest.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:10:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:03:22 PM
Also, he wasn't rejected from the democratic party.
Your facts are assprone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter
wasn't re-elected to their party. Didn't say the kicked him out.
I get the feeling you do that on purpose.
:backpedal: You said they rejected him. We weren't talking about his election, but his defection.
You're intellectually dishonest. Fuck off.
I swear to God, it's like talking to Memnoch over at MW.
Fucking "independents" are all the same.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:11:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:08:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 08:38:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
you mean Arlin "Patriot Act signer, guy who added that provision that removed the 120 day limit on interim appointments by the Attorney General, also voted for the ARRA stimulus" Spector? He quit the Republican party and was subsequently rejected by the Democrats.
I stand by what I said.
Of course you do. We can't run around holding Mrs Sarah responsible for her actions, or Steele for his. It wouldn't be right.
And we're all stupid as fuck, and can't remember things that happened 2 years ago.
Spector quit because he was told he was insufficiently conservative, and his party was not only not going to help him in the primary, they were going to fund someone to run against him.
But why let a fact or two get in the way, when Mrs Palin's honor is at stake?
where the fuck is the sigh emoticon?
where you get that I'm somehow defending Sarah Palin is beyond me. The fight might have been co-opted by the same religious rights from Fallwells "Moral Majority" but it wasn't started by them.
As someone who was actually on the ground, participating and pushing and supporting local libertarian candidates to precinct heads and local office during this time period, I'm giving you first hand information gleaned from conversations with many MANY people, not shit I read off of Wonket or wherever this crap about it being Sarah Palin's movement from the start got started.
National party politics took it over and are still trying to get it to conform to what they want it to be. It started much smaller and with high hopes, however unrealistic once you get past the state level.
You're giving me unverifiable anecdotal SECOND HAND, hearsay bullshit, when I can just look at direct quotes from Steele, Palin, and Specter.
And link me to the post where I referenced Wonkett? Thanks in advance...Until you provide such a link, take your strawman bullshit to someone who'll listen to it.
TGRR,
Has no time for the dishonest.
feel free to link me where I was clearly defending sarah palin.
you willfully misinterpret what should be clear to someone with basic reading comprehension skills. You want to parse words when you obviously knew I knew who I was talking about and am very familiar with his defection and inability to get re-elected as a democrat.
as to it being second hand, well I guess whatever Sarah, Steele et. al. say about the division within the party must the the fucking TROOF. :lulz:
you're being dishonest and can yourself, fuck off.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:11:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:08:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 08:38:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
you mean Arlin "Patriot Act signer, guy who added that provision that removed the 120 day limit on interim appointments by the Attorney General, also voted for the ARRA stimulus" Spector? He quit the Republican party and was subsequently rejected by the Democrats.
I stand by what I said.
Of course you do. We can't run around holding Mrs Sarah responsible for her actions, or Steele for his. It wouldn't be right.
And we're all stupid as fuck, and can't remember things that happened 2 years ago.
Spector quit because he was told he was insufficiently conservative, and his party was not only not going to help him in the primary, they were going to fund someone to run against him.
But why let a fact or two get in the way, when Mrs Palin's honor is at stake?
where the fuck is the sigh emoticon?
where you get that I'm somehow defending Sarah Palin is beyond me. The fight might have been co-opted by the same religious rights from Fallwells "Moral Majority" but it wasn't started by them.
As someone who was actually on the ground, participating and pushing and supporting local libertarian candidates to precinct heads and local office during this time period, I'm giving you first hand information gleaned from conversations with many MANY people, not shit I read off of Wonket or wherever this crap about it being Sarah Palin's movement from the start got started.
National party politics took it over and are still trying to get it to conform to what they want it to be. It started much smaller and with high hopes, however unrealistic once you get past the state level.
You're giving me unverifiable anecdotal SECOND HAND, hearsay bullshit, when I can just look at direct quotes from Steele, Palin, and Specter.
And link me to the post where I referenced Wonkett? Thanks in advance...Until you provide such a link, take your strawman bullshit to someone who'll listen to it.
TGRR,
Has no time for the dishonest.
feel free to link me where I was clearly defending sarah palin.
First nested quote in this post. You told a deliberate untruth, to Palin's advantage.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
you willfully misinterpret what should be clear to someone with basic reading comprehension skills. You want to parse words when you obviously knew I knew who I was talking about and am very familiar with his defection and inability to get re-elected as a democrat.
Bullshit. We were discussing his defection, and you said the democratic party rejected him. You lied about that. You then stated that I got my information from Wonkett. Link up, assmonkey.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
as to it being second hand, well I guess whatever Sarah, Steele et. al. say about the division within the party must the the fucking TROOF. :lulz:
HEAR THAT, EVERYONE? CREDIBLE LINKS DON'T COUNT. ONLY UNVERIFIABLE ANECDOTES ARE EVIDENCE.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
you're being dishonest and can yourself, fuck off.
Die in a fire. Seriously.
Also remember that local branches of the libertarian party are the very halls of power themselves.
:lulz:
TGRR,
Had forgotten, for a moment, that libertarians are just teabaggers with a full set of teeth.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:08:32 PM
where you get that I'm somehow defending Sarah Palin is beyond me. The fight might have been co-opted by the same religious rights from Fallwells "Moral Majority" but it wasn't started by them.
As someone who was actually on the ground, participating and pushing and supporting local libertarian candidates to precinct heads and local office during this time period, I'm giving you first hand information gleaned from conversations with many MANY people, not shit I read off of Wonket or wherever this crap about it being Sarah Palin's movement from the start got started.
National party politics took it over and are still trying to get it to conform to what they want it to be. It started much smaller and with high hopes, however unrealistic once you get past the state level.
Christian Reconstructionists like James Dobson and Gary North have been fighting this for a long long time.
Gary North actually used to be on Ron Paul's chief of staff and Rand Paul in an interview after getting support from Dobson said..
Quote"I'm a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife's a Deacon there and we've gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society.
98% of us won't murder people, won't steal, won't break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life."
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2010/05/20/rand-paul-one-on-one-on-the-brody-file.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_%28Christian_Reconstructionist%29
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:20:54 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:11:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:08:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 08:38:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
you mean Arlin "Patriot Act signer, guy who added that provision that removed the 120 day limit on interim appointments by the Attorney General, also voted for the ARRA stimulus" Spector? He quit the Republican party and was subsequently rejected by the Democrats.
I stand by what I said.
Of course you do. We can't run around holding Mrs Sarah responsible for her actions, or Steele for his. It wouldn't be right.
And we're all stupid as fuck, and can't remember things that happened 2 years ago.
Spector quit because he was told he was insufficiently conservative, and his party was not only not going to help him in the primary, they were going to fund someone to run against him.
But why let a fact or two get in the way, when Mrs Palin's honor is at stake?
where the fuck is the sigh emoticon?
where you get that I'm somehow defending Sarah Palin is beyond me. The fight might have been co-opted by the same religious rights from Fallwells "Moral Majority" but it wasn't started by them.
As someone who was actually on the ground, participating and pushing and supporting local libertarian candidates to precinct heads and local office during this time period, I'm giving you first hand information gleaned from conversations with many MANY people, not shit I read off of Wonket or wherever this crap about it being Sarah Palin's movement from the start got started.
National party politics took it over and are still trying to get it to conform to what they want it to be. It started much smaller and with high hopes, however unrealistic once you get past the state level.
You're giving me unverifiable anecdotal SECOND HAND, hearsay bullshit, when I can just look at direct quotes from Steele, Palin, and Specter.
And link me to the post where I referenced Wonkett? Thanks in advance...Until you provide such a link, take your strawman bullshit to someone who'll listen to it.
TGRR,
Has no time for the dishonest.
feel free to link me where I was clearly defending sarah palin.
First nested quote in this post. You told a deliberate untruth, to Palin's advantage.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
you willfully misinterpret what should be clear to someone with basic reading comprehension skills. You want to parse words when you obviously knew I knew who I was talking about and am very familiar with his defection and inability to get re-elected as a democrat.
Bullshit. We were discussing his defection, and you said the democratic party rejected him. You lied about that. You then stated that I got my information from Wonkett. Link up, assmonkey.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
as to it being second hand, well I guess whatever Sarah, Steele et. al. say about the division within the party must the the fucking TROOF. :lulz:
HEAR THAT, EVERYONE? CREDIBLE LINKS DON'T COUNT. ONLY UNVERIFIABLE ANECDOTES ARE EVIDENCE.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
you're being dishonest and can yourself, fuck off.
Die in a fire. Seriously.
you're the only one calling it an untruth, and if you actually read it, it gives no advantage AT ALL to Palin. but you know, make your own interpretation. It's allowed in discordia.
Yes we were discussing his defection. Again, you're demanding exact words and when you don't get them you pitch a hissy fit and say someone is lying. Even basic centextual comprehension could conclude I was talking about his failed re-election as a democrat, but that's fine to ignore as long as it allows you to get angry, selfritious and to reject everything said by a person. That's how normal grownups behave all of the time in partisan politics. You're in good company.
I clearly said "I read off of Wonkett" not you. I don't know where you get your info. Presumably it's from Palin's lips to your ears as the true truthy truth about the Republican party.
Feel free to go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Liberty
and since it's local to my area and relevant to the "discussion"
http://www.rlcfl.org/regions/rlcnef.html
or the offer to fuck off is still on the table.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:34:48 PM
Yes we were discussing his defection. Again, you're demanding exact words and when you don't get them you pitch a hissy fit and say someone is lying. Even basic centextual comprehension could conclude I was talking about his failed re-election as a democrat, but that's fine to ignore as long as it allows you to get angry, selfritious and to reject everything said by a person. That's how normal grownups behave all of the time in partisan politics. You're in good company.
I said he was driven out of the GOP, and you said he left and was rejected by the democratic party. I don't know how much clearer it has to be.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:34:48 PM
I clearly said "I read off of Wonkett" not you. I don't know where you get your info. Presumably it's from Palin's lips to your ears as the true truthy truth about the Republican party.
Actually, I posted a link, and I was prepared to post more as requested, but how can that compare to the whispers at the political juggernaut known as the libertarian party?
:lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:34:48 PMFeel free to go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Liberty
and since it's local to my area and relevant to the "discussion"
http://www.rlcfl.org/regions/rlcnef.html
or the offer to fuck off is still on the table.
Well, let's just see...
What's either one of those have to do with "The moderate republicans started the battle" against Palin, et al?
:? or :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:39:56 PM
What's either one of those have to do with "The moderate republicans started the battle" against Palin, et al?
:? or :lulz:
hard core fiscal conservatives can hardly be called moderate. anti war republicans have been so off the bell curve since Bush 1 to be nearly non existant, or at least shouted down by the rest of the party.
Palin wasn't even on the fucking national radar until after the Primary. The division was evident before she was even chosen as McMain's running mate.
Michael Steele wasn't head until 2009.
both of those organizations were established in 2008. That was only done after it was apparent they could garner large monetary support from small, individual donations.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:48:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:39:56 PM
What's either one of those have to do with "The moderate republicans started the battle" against Palin, et al?
:? or :lulz:
hard core fiscal conservatives can hardly be called moderate. anti war republicans have been so off the bell curve since Bush 1 to be nearly non existant, or at least shouted down by the rest of the party.
Palin wasn't even on the fucking national radar until after the Primary. The division was evident before she was even chosen as McMain's running mate.
Michael Steele wasn't head until 2009.
both of those organizations were established in 2008. That was only done after it was apparent they could garner large monetary support from small, individual donations.
And the Koch brothers, who basically financed the teabagger sites before the 2008 election. :lulz:
And the idea that Ron Paul has any pull at all in the republican party is laughable as hell.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:51:23 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:48:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:39:56 PM
What's either one of those have to do with "The moderate republicans started the battle" against Palin, et al?
:? or :lulz:
hard core fiscal conservatives can hardly be called moderate. anti war republicans have been so off the bell curve since Bush 1 to be nearly non existant, or at least shouted down by the rest of the party.
Palin wasn't even on the fucking national radar until after the Primary. The division was evident before she was even chosen as McMain's running mate.
Michael Steele wasn't head until 2009.
both of those organizations were established in 2008. That was only done after it was apparent they could garner large monetary support from small, individual donations.
And the Koch brothers, who basically financed the teabagger sites before the 2008 election. :lulz:
And the idea that Ron Paul has any pull at all in the republican party is laughable as hell.
feel free to link to a tea bagger site, financed by the Koch's, prior to 2008.
I'll be waiting patiently in some other thread.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:54:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:51:23 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 09:48:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 09:39:56 PM
What's either one of those have to do with "The moderate republicans started the battle" against Palin, et al?
:? or :lulz:
hard core fiscal conservatives can hardly be called moderate. anti war republicans have been so off the bell curve since Bush 1 to be nearly non existant, or at least shouted down by the rest of the party.
Palin wasn't even on the fucking national radar until after the Primary. The division was evident before she was even chosen as McMain's running mate.
Michael Steele wasn't head until 2009.
both of those organizations were established in 2008. That was only done after it was apparent they could garner large monetary support from small, individual donations.
And the Koch brothers, who basically financed the teabagger sites before the 2008 election. :lulz:
And the idea that Ron Paul has any pull at all in the republican party is laughable as hell.
feel free to link to a tea bagger site, financed by the Koch's, prior to 2008.
I'll be waiting patiently in some other thread.
First:
QuoteA
few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—an organization that David Koch started, in 2004—held a different kind of gathering. Over the July 4th weekend, a summit called Texas Defending the American Dream took place in a chilly hotel ballroom in Austin. Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence. And on this occasion the audience was roused not by a dance performance but by a series of speakers denouncing President Barack Obama. Peggy Venable, the organizer of the summit, warned that Administration officials "have a socialist vision for this country."
Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. "Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests," it said. "But you can do something about it." The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, said, "What they don't say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens' movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires."
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz15ZzjGGwZ
More on the way, hold tight.
http://iowaindependent.com/41877/the-koch-brothers-and-the-tea-party-movement
The original concept the Koch Brothers had for the Tea Party Movement goes all the way back to 1980. Imagine that.
Roger beat me too it !!!
:argh!:
so
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/13/tea-party-billionaire-koch-brothers
And here ya go:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity
I'll post more when I'm not behind the nannywall.
Where did he go? :sad:
he works
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 10:09:00 PM
Where did he go? :sad:
I think he's, "waiting patiently in another thread."
:sadbanana:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 17, 2010, 10:10:18 PM
he works
Yeah? Because he's still online, and he said he'd "be patiently waiting in another thread".
I suppose it's hard to see your religion die.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 10:11:52 PM
Yeah? Because he's still online, and he said he'd "be patiently waiting in another thread".
I suppose it's hard to see your religion die.
I was in transit from work to home. Im always logged in from home, the IP for posts varies if I'm at work.
yeah, Koch brothers were operating in the 80's, part of the libertarian party. The party has always had hopes of getting a movement going. Koch and his brother are major contributors.
Im sure they donated to individual campaigns to the fullest extent the law allows, and used the same vehicles both the major 2 use to get around funding other areas that give voice.
The Koch's, while libertarian, are millionaires first by birth, second by being smart enough to hold onto it and knowing where to put it. If they did bank roll websites with Tea Party association, (I have no doubt they did, and already knew the links you'd post. I'm well aware who David Koch is.) then it was well before Sarah Palin or Michael Steele were even heard of nationally.
The fact remains, the libertarian division I mentioned earlier began before Sarah and Michael and the sort who support their ilk took it over and began receiving the same source of funds.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 10:11:52 PM
I suppose it's hard to see your religion die.
says the guy who knows so very fucking much about me from just 3 months worth of occasional posts.
WTF? Now you're saying they DID?
they're small individual donors
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 18, 2010, 01:16:35 AM
they're small individual donors
:lulz:
They made their dough in the astroturf biz.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2010, 01:09:27 AM
WTF? Now you're saying they DID?
I knew they did, and didn't deny it. by helpfully pointing out that libertarians started the tea party movement before Palin et. al. were figure heads, you've proved my original point nicely.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 18, 2010, 01:16:35 AM
they're small individual donors
individuals can only contribute so much to any campaign legally without establishing PACs and other sorts of nonsense that's used by the 2 parties to side step law. I direct you to any of the single day money bombs during the primaries when the movement got its start. Also before Palin was on the radar.
the average donation was around $20-50.
The Koch's bank roll websites, no doubt. not in the scope of the original point of contention TGRR had, but helpful to point out that it happened before the hijacking by national level Republicans.
must eat dinner now, I'll come back in a bit.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 01:39:25 AM
I knew they did, and didn't deny it. by helpfully pointing out that libertarians started the tea party movement before Palin et. al. were figure heads, you've proved my original point nicely.
I never said Palin started it. What the hell are you on about?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2010, 01:41:07 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 01:39:25 AM
I knew they did, and didn't deny it. by helpfully pointing out that libertarians started the tea party movement before Palin et. al. were figure heads, you've proved my original point nicely.
I never said Palin started it. What the hell are you on about?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2010, 08:38:31 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 17, 2010, 07:30:23 PM
As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.
Utter bullshit. The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests. They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.
your original shit tossing that I attempted to answer with reasoned discourse, before you started calling me a liar.
QuoteOf course you do. We can't run around holding Mrs Sarah responsible for her actions, or Steele for his. It wouldn't be right.
And we're all stupid as fuck, and can't remember things that happened 2 years ago.
Spector quit because he was told he was insufficiently conservative, and his party was not only not going to help him in the primary, they were going to fund someone to run against him.
But why let a fact or two get in the way, when Mrs Palin's honor is at stake?
might have misinterpreted this entire thing, sure. I thought what you meant was somehow I was being an apologist for for Sarah Palin's war mongering in the middle east, when I felt I was clearly drawing a line between the sort of people endorsing that crazy bitch, and the sort of people who tried to remind the Republican party that it was not, historically, the war party and party of over seas intervention, for both idealogical and fiscal reasons. Also that this recent division began outside of national Republican faces, at a much more local level. Yeah, there were the usual suspects from the religious right, all fire and brimstone for war to bring on Armageddon, military spending no matter the cost, and ban fags from marriage doncha know.. but they were finally being shouted down by people sick of hearing that sort of shit attributed to them as part of the party, if only for a brief time before the primaries were over.
In hindsight, I should have ignored your jabs at the point where you called me a blatant liar. While I can be just as misinformed as anyone on a particular subject, accusing me of outright willful dishonesty grabbed my nuts the wrong way and I felt I had to answer.
I wont do that in the future with you Roger. I know you're a self proclaimed horrible cunt, and you revel in it like a pig rooting in it's own shit, but I hope the volume of venom was more due to the shit you have going on otherwise and not because you like conflict for the sake of conflict, no matter the casualty.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 03:00:36 AM
I wont do that in the future with you Roger. I know you're a self proclaimed horrible cunt, and you revel in it like a pig rooting in it's own shit, but I hope the volume of venom was more due to the shit you have going on otherwise and not because you like conflict for the sake of conflict, no matter the casualty.
I'm an
artist, DP.
Most be that modern art I hear so much about
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 18, 2010, 03:14:20 AM
Most be that modern art I hear so much about
I actually was making a point, but why not kill two birds with one stone and be a cunt, too? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2010, 03:18:28 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 18, 2010, 03:14:20 AM
Most be that modern art I hear so much about
I actually was making a point, but why not kill two birds with one stone and be a cunt, too? :lulz:
something along the lines of "it's a art?"
if not, you two lost me. late anyway. work happens early.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
something along the lines of "it's a art?"
Outside of the flyover states, we say "an art".
Just saying.
TGRR,
Usually kind to drunks, the mentally ill, and laissez faire capitalists.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2010, 03:29:35 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
something along the lines of "it's a art?"
Outside of the flyover states, we say "an art".
Just saying.
TGRR,
Usually kind to drunks, the mentally ill, and laissez faire capitalists.
I'll forgive you this for your age. In your defense, I probably wouldn't know that particular subtle bit of trolling except I got bored while unemployed and staying up late a few years ago.
someone who's previous posts could be said to be well written and mostly free of errors in grammar then adding at the end that "it's a art" or specifically, "trolling is a art" is a very... lazy way to troll someone who wants to be a grammar nazi.
I wont hold the rest of it against you since you're being nice.
you cock, you.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 03:43:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2010, 03:29:35 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
something along the lines of "it's a art?"
Outside of the flyover states, we say "an art".
Just saying.
TGRR,
Usually kind to drunks, the mentally ill, and laissez faire capitalists.
I'll forgive you this for your age. In your defense, I probably wouldn't know that particular subtle bit of trolling except I got bored while unemployed and staying up late a few years ago.
someone who's previous posts could be said to be well written and mostly free of errors in grammar then adding at the end that "it's a art" or specifically, "trolling is a art" is a very... lazy way to troll someone who wants to be a grammar nazi.
I wont hold the rest of it against you since you're being nice.
you cock, you.
I'm a horrible cunt
so you don't have to.
You should be thanking me.
The short and skinny of the actual message I was conveying amongst the trolling was this: You believe the wrong things. Not that your beliefs are necessarily wrong, mind you, it's that you've chosen the wrong
sorts of things to believe in.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2010, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 03:43:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2010, 03:29:35 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
something along the lines of "it's a art?"
Outside of the flyover states, we say "an art".
Just saying.
TGRR,
Usually kind to drunks, the mentally ill, and laissez faire capitalists.
I'll forgive you this for your age. In your defense, I probably wouldn't know that particular subtle bit of trolling except I got bored while unemployed and staying up late a few years ago.
someone who's previous posts could be said to be well written and mostly free of errors in grammar then adding at the end that "it's a art" or specifically, "trolling is a art" is a very... lazy way to troll someone who wants to be a grammar nazi.
I wont hold the rest of it against you since you're being nice.
you cock, you.
I'm a horrible cunt so you don't have to.
You should be thanking me.
The short and skinny of the actual message I was conveying amongst the trolling was this: You believe the wrong things. Not that your beliefs are necessarily wrong, mind you, it's that you've chosen the wrong sorts of things to believe in.
I'm going to have to get back to this when my I have a reply that doesn't sound like I'm being a complete fucking dick (even though that's my first instinct) and I'm not also not mired in markup drawings with deadlines on them.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 06:16:04 PM
I'm going to have to get back to this when my I have a reply that doesn't sound like I'm being a complete fucking dick
WHAT'S THIS? CALM, REASONABLE BEHAVIOR ON
MY PD? :crankey:
I was being serious, though. You believe the wrong things.
Genuinely interested where this is going.
And NOT in the :popcorn: way, genuinely interested.
Quote from: Telarus on November 19, 2010, 01:10:36 AM
Genuinely interested where this is going.
And NOT in the :popcorn: way, genuinely interested.
interested in the argument about arguments, or maddow and stewart? Cain pretty much summarized it with his trope reference. stewart is pussyfooting about, vice giving it to them hard like a
true master of satire would.
it's interesting stewart doesn't consider himself to be a newsman *say it newsmun* when he is the equivalent of an editorial laced with jokes, as opposed to a biting criticism most liken to his self-proclaimed title 'satirist'
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2010, 06:43:46 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 18, 2010, 06:16:04 PM
I'm going to have to get back to this when my I have a reply that doesn't sound like I'm being a complete fucking dick
WHAT'S THIS? CALM, REASONABLE BEHAVIOR ON MY PD? :crankey:
I was being serious, though. You believe the wrong things.
alright, I've thought about it, and rather than the completely asshole sounding statement that was my knee jerk reaction, I've settled on slightly sarcastic interogative.
do please tell me, oh condescending holy pope of Discord, what these things are that I believe that are wrong and how I might get right in the eyes of our most beloved goddess and your highness the great pointer outer of wrongness on this Machines Forum, Simple though it may be.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on November 19, 2010, 01:39:42 AM
Quote from: Telarus on November 19, 2010, 01:10:36 AM
Genuinely interested where this is going.
And NOT in the :popcorn: way, genuinely interested.
interested in the argument about arguments, or maddow and stewart? Cain pretty much summarized it with his trope reference. stewart is pussyfooting about, vice giving it to them hard like a true master of satire would.
it's interesting stewart doesn't consider himself to be a newsman *say it newsmun* when he is the equivalent of an editorial laced with jokes, as opposed to a biting criticism most liken to his self-proclaimed title 'satirist'
I think that's because he feels he has to go for the laughter angle to maintain both his audience and his guest pool. He can be critical without alienating future potential guests who might begin to believe they'll be railroaded and laughed at rather than with.
I think his position is that the hard questions should be being asked by Real News People. At least, that was what I got out of the session of Crossfire with Tucker Carlson that got the show shut down.
He's not saying anything differently than what he said back in 2004 on that show, IMO.
Ok Im probably going to get the flaming of a life time here (mind you Im not a big fan of TV to begin with) but it always seemed to me that the bar was set so low that Steward became bigger then his ability of a satirist and now he's reeling back a bit.
That and he surrounded himself with a really good crew. The show lost a lot by the time Cobert left to do his own thing.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 19, 2010, 01:56:49 AM
Ok Im probably going to get the flaming of a life time here (mind you Im not a big fan of TV to begin with) but it always seemed to me that the bar was set so low that Steward became bigger then his ability of a satirist and now he's reeling back a bit.
That and he surrounded himself with a really good crew. The show lost a lot by the time Cobert left to do his own thing.
that's not too far off the mark along with what DP said (good call). Colbert (or his team) is just funnier and he established himself, from the beginning, closer to what he wanted to be than stewart did. so for stewart, shifting towards the ideal satirist would shrink his base as DP pointed out.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on November 19, 2010, 02:05:43 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 19, 2010, 01:56:49 AM
Ok Im probably going to get the flaming of a life time here (mind you Im not a big fan of TV to begin with) but it always seemed to me that the bar was set so low that Steward became bigger then his ability of a satirist and now he's reeling back a bit.
That and he surrounded himself with a really good crew. The show lost a lot by the time Cobert left to do his own thing.
that's not too far off the mark along with what DP said (good call). Colbert (or his team) is just funnier and he established himself, from the beginning, closer to what he wanted to be than stewart did. so for stewart, shifting towards the ideal satirist would shrink his base as DP pointed out.
I think Stewart is just who he wants to be. His comedy sense and timing came from his roots as a stand up comedian. Watch some of his early stuff, it's the same John we know and love. He's more refined, and has a format and a bus full of writers, but his comedic persona is really him.
I don't find Colbert funnier, but I find he and his writers are much more biting in their satire than Stewart and his crew are. The coorispondents dinner Colbert did being the greatest example. Stewart could never have pulled off roundhouse after roundhouse the way Colbert did, because that's not him. He's happy to make fun without alienating either side, simply pointing out that the Emperor has No Clothes.
Colbert would go so far as to point out that Yes, the Emperor is Naked, and should probably get a body wax, go on a diet, get that birthmark on his ass removed and MAN it must have been cold out that day.
yeah, colbert had the advantage of situating his show based on his experiences at the daily show, so he's been able to carve himself a slightly more specific position to mock from.
Charlie Rose interviewed Colbert (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/93) (out of character) in 2006. One thing that Colbert said was that his mask allows him to get away with a lot of stuff that Jon can't say or do. And it protects him, he never has to argue from a position of being right. So he considers what Jon does more courageous, but yes, he can be a lot sharper.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 01:42:13 AM
do please tell me, oh condescending holy pope of Discord, what these things are that I believe that are wrong and how I might get right in the eyes of our most beloved goddess and your highness the great pointer outer of wrongness on this Machines Forum, Simple though it may be.
I'm glad you asked.
1. You can't "get right with Eris".
2. The proper term for me is "Your Eminence" or "Hey asshole".
3. You believe the wrong things, because you've listened to some of the lies, and bought into the monkey system. In the words of DJ Rubber Ducky, "A Black Sheep is Still a Sheep". The libertarians are just another facet of the American political machine
TM (the facet used to corral anyone who is dangerously close to
thinking), which is itself just another variant on the age-old alpha/beta monkey paradigm that's been failing for 2,000,000+ years.
If you're going to do THAT, then why bother with Discordianism? We have to WORK with the system, but we certainly don't have to IDENTIFY with it. We certainly don't have to swallow
half the lies because we've decided on which side we'd rather NOT have sodomize us, and thus identified with the other side, which we've convinced ourselves will at least use a little lube.
I mean, if you're going to start believing social fictions like "political parties" and "the government" and "the free market", you'll believe
anything.
If anyone missed it, Stewart tore into Beck last night. About time IMO.
I'll get back to you Roger. It's marinating.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 03:02:28 PM
If anyone missed it, Stewart tore into Beck last night. About time IMO.
About time? He's done that sort of thing before. He apes Beck on a regular basis. Gives a good flexing of his satiric muscles.
Quote from: Jenne on November 19, 2010, 05:36:11 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 03:02:28 PM
If anyone missed it, Stewart tore into Beck last night. About time IMO.
About time? He's done that sort of thing before. He apes Beck on a regular basis. Gives a good flexing of his satiric muscles.
I've missed many then, but this one seemed really over the top to me.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 05:38:47 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 19, 2010, 05:36:11 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 03:02:28 PM
If anyone missed it, Stewart tore into Beck last night. About time IMO.
About time? He's done that sort of thing before. He apes Beck on a regular basis. Gives a good flexing of his satiric muscles.
I've missed many then, but this one seemed really over the top to me.
yeah, you've missed out if you think that wasn't par for the course--it was good, but not over the top. He's done similiarly before.
*whistles*
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2010, 05:40:51 PM
*whistles*
im getting to it.. might not have it all in my head by the end of lunch, in that case it'll have to be this weekend when I get a down moment.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 05:42:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2010, 05:40:51 PM
*whistles*
im getting to it.. might not have it all in my head by the end of lunch, in that case it'll have to be this weekend when I get a down moment.
Well, then, please PM me whenever you get around to it.
Link to streaming video?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2010, 05:43:24 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 05:42:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2010, 05:40:51 PM
*whistles*
im getting to it.. might not have it all in my head by the end of lunch, in that case it'll have to be this weekend when I get a down moment.
Well, then, please PM me whenever you get around to it.
Sure will do.
000, it's available on the Daily Show website, second and third video down.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 05:48:38 PM
Sure will do.
Thanks.
TGRR,
Has become more accomodating to those paralyzed by partisanship.
I had planned on writing this tonight when I have more time but need a break from diagrams anyway.
Quote1. You can't "get right with Eris".
fair enough. it was tongue in cheek anyway.
Quote2. The proper term for me is "Your Eminence" or "Hey asshole"
.
I'm going to go with an amalgamation. How's "Your Eminent Asshole" sound?
Quote3. You believe the wrong things, because you've listened to some of the lies, and bought into the monkey system. In the words of DJ Rubber Ducky, "A Black Sheep is Still a Sheep". The libertarians are just another facet of the American political machineTM (the facet used to corral anyone who is dangerously close to thinking), which is itself just another variant on the age-old alpha/beta monkey paradigm that's been failing for 2,000,000+ years.
If you're going to do THAT, then why bother with Discordianism? We have to WORK with the system, but we certainly don't have to IDENTIFY with it. We certainly don't have to swallow half the lies because we've decided on which side we'd rather NOT have sodomize us, and thus identified with the other side, which we've convinced ourselves will at least use a little lube.
I mean, if you're going to start believing social fictions like "political parties" and "the government" and "the free market", you'll believe anything.
this all rings true to my ears, and in my more lucid, less settled-in moments, sounds vaguely like something I would say. Libertarians as a political party never appealed to me really, but some of the ideas I found when I got to exploring politics sounded more in line with the way I live my own life, and while there certainly are a lot of self satisfied libertarians who think their way is the true and best way, that could be said about any political/religious/social group. I have, however, met more libertarian identifying humans than any others who are open to perspective shifts when given new information that challenges their current notions.
It's not normally an identity I wear around though it comes out here often enough I suppose, and if it didn't even have a name, or any other adherents, I'd still have the same general beliefs shaped through my experiences over 30 years on this hunk of rock, I just wouldn't have a label for them.
TFYS,S, I know. And I haven't drank the kool-aid that says any one group of monkeys holds the best ideas to the exclusion of all others.
QuoteIf you're going to do THAT, then why bother with Discordianism? We have to WORK with the system, but we certainly don't have to IDENTIFY with it. We certainly don't have to swallow half the lies because we've decided on which side we'd rather NOT have sodomize us, and thus identified with the other side, which we've convinced ourselves will at least use a little lube.
I know this to be true. Thanks for the defibrillation. I'm always a work in progress.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2010, 03:47:24 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 01:42:13 AM
do please tell me, oh condescending holy pope of Discord, what these things are that I believe that are wrong and how I might get right in the eyes of our most beloved goddess and your highness the great pointer outer of wrongness on this Machines Forum, Simple though it may be.
I'm glad you asked.
1. You can't "get right with Eris".
2. The proper term for me is "Your Eminence" or "Hey asshole".
3. You believe the wrong things, because you've listened to some of the lies, and bought into the monkey system. In the words of DJ Rubber Ducky, "A Black Sheep is Still a Sheep". The libertarians are just another facet of the American political machineTM (the facet used to corral anyone who is dangerously close to thinking), which is itself just another variant on the age-old alpha/beta monkey paradigm that's been failing for 2,000,000+ years.
If you're going to do THAT, then why bother with Discordianism? We have to WORK with the system, but we certainly don't have to IDENTIFY with it. We certainly don't have to swallow half the lies because we've decided on which side we'd rather NOT have sodomize us, and thus identified with the other side, which we've convinced ourselves will at least use a little lube.
I mean, if you're going to start believing social fictions like "political parties" and "the government" and "the free market", you'll believe anything.
<-------- will believe anything.
devoutly
Me too, but it's mostly just the bullshit that I make up myself.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 20, 2010, 10:28:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2010, 03:47:24 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 19, 2010, 01:42:13 AM
do please tell me, oh condescending holy pope of Discord, what these things are that I believe that are wrong and how I might get right in the eyes of our most beloved goddess and your highness the great pointer outer of wrongness on this Machines Forum, Simple though it may be.
I'm glad you asked.
1. You can't "get right with Eris".
2. The proper term for me is "Your Eminence" or "Hey asshole".
3. You believe the wrong things, because you've listened to some of the lies, and bought into the monkey system. In the words of DJ Rubber Ducky, "A Black Sheep is Still a Sheep". The libertarians are just another facet of the American political machineTM (the facet used to corral anyone who is dangerously close to thinking), which is itself just another variant on the age-old alpha/beta monkey paradigm that's been failing for 2,000,000+ years.
If you're going to do THAT, then why bother with Discordianism? We have to WORK with the system, but we certainly don't have to IDENTIFY with it. We certainly don't have to swallow half the lies because we've decided on which side we'd rather NOT have sodomize us, and thus identified with the other side, which we've convinced ourselves will at least use a little lube.
I mean, if you're going to start believing social fictions like "political parties" and "the government" and "the free market", you'll believe anything.
<-------- will believe anything. devoutly
Beats thinking.
Quote from: Sister Fracture on November 20, 2010, 10:39:10 PM
Me too, but it's mostly just the bullshit that I make up myself.
I'll believe other people's bullshit too, so long as it is entertaining.
I think for myself Roger. implying I don't because some of my views fall in line with a particular group who has a given name is pretty myopic IMO.
If we're discussing reconciling social politics with discordia, which I think we are, I suppose you yourself do not at all identify with any school of political thought here in the states or anywhere else in the world?
do you pick and choose? have you your very own positions that cannot be easily filed away and classified?
are you above identifying with other humans and their politics?
more and more it seems to me you would much rather not be on this hunk of rock at all anymore.
Pickle, if you believe what you read, you aren't really a discordian
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 21, 2010, 11:27:44 PM
I think for myself Roger. implying I don't because some of my views fall in line with a particular group who has a given name is pretty myopic IMO.
You said yourself that you are an active member of a political party, ie, the Libertarians. Your views don't
fall in line with them, you actively organize for them.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 21, 2010, 11:27:44 PM
If we're discussing reconciling social politics with discordia, which I think we are, I suppose you yourself do not at all identify with any school of political thought here in the states or anywhere else in the world?
None that are presently in use.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 21, 2010, 11:27:44 PM
do you pick and choose? have you your very own positions that cannot be easily filed away and classified?
Does misanthropy count?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 21, 2010, 11:27:44 PM
are you above identifying with other humans and their politics?
No, yes, in order.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 21, 2010, 11:27:44 PM
more and more it seems to me you would much rather not be on this hunk of rock at all anymore.
No, it's everyone else that needs to shift.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 22, 2010, 12:19:53 AM
Pickle, if you believe what you read, you aren't really a discordian
that must then include anything written here, ever.
how very catch 22.. or 23, as the case may be.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 22, 2010, 01:14:14 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 22, 2010, 12:19:53 AM
Pickle, if you believe what you read, you aren't really a discordian
that must then include anything written here, ever.
how very catch 22.. or 23, as the case may be.
Now you're starting to get it.