Stewart/Colbert: 2 of the top 3 liberal pundits by views

[thegreekdog]

The real difference, for you, is that you hate President Bush and you like President Obama.

I was writing a response to your post, sir, but forget it. I am fucking tired of comments like this. I refuse to answer a question to which you have already formed an answer.

Sorry. Ignore my assertion. I should not have assumed that you hated President Bush and liked President Obama. I would like to hear your thoughts and understand why you think there is a difference between the filth that Glenn Beck spews and the filth that Olbermann spews (apart from the flowery language). Also, if it's helpful at all, I agree with points that both Beck and Olbermann made in their respective video clips.

[InkL0sed]

Alright. Apology accepted.

In that video, Olbermann was criticizing Bush for using national security as an excuse to ignore the Constitution, much like John Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR all did. Regardless of whether or not you agreed with the policy, that is valid criticism to make. He did not encourage anyone to kill anyone else, nor did he speak for anyone else. The fact that it did not go as far as internment of citizens does not mean that the bill was Constitutional. Olbermann was essentially saying that this bill was making it possible.

Glenn Beck, on the other hand, more than implies that Obama is killing American citizens, by metaphorically pouring gasoline over them and set them on fire.

If one watches both of these things accepts what both of them are saying is true, there is a logical (or at least expected) reaction to both.

To Olbermann's segment, if you care enough about it, you call your Congressman, stage a protest, probably you vote Democrat next election (or at least someone who seems very unlikely to do the same thing).

To Glenn Beck (and this is assuming you believe him) - what do you do? You believe your government is trying to kill you. If you're already, shall we say, a loose cannon, you may very well shoot a police officer.

How are those two things equivalent?

[InkL0sed]

There's also the issue that Beck is saying Obama will take away your guns, when he has in fact said just the opposite.

[thegreekdog]

Glenn Beck, on the other hand, more than implies that Obama is killing American citizens, by metaphorically pouring gasoline over them and set them on fire.

I must have viewed that wrong. I thought it was a metaphor for destroying our future.

To Glenn Beck (and this is assuming you believe him) - what do you do? You believe your government is trying to kill you. If you're already, shall we say, a loose cannon, you may very well shoot a police officer.

I think you're overreacting. I think your solutions to Keith Olbermann's problems are the same solutions you should have for Glenn Beck's problems - namely, vote for someone else (or stage a protest).

Like I said, I disagreed with President Bush's wiretapping, et. al. and I disagree with President Obama's bailout and rate of spending. My solutions to both of those problems is to vote for a Libertarian.

Finally, I think a lot of your Glenn Beck concerns are taken out of context. Additionally, I think we're splitting hairs on a lot of this stuff. Glenn Beck saying "he's going to take away your guns" is akin to Keith Olbermann saying "he's going to throw 10,000 American-Muslims in jail." Everyone knows neither thing is going to happen.

[InkL0sed]

Oh yeah, one more thing.

In response to this:

To me, when one has to "agree" or "disagree" with the news, it's no longer news.

To me, these shows are pretty much equivalent to an op-ed section in a newspaper. They aren't news, and MSNBC at least doesn't say it is. So no, I guess I agree that it isn't really news.

That's why I don't watch CNN - they're biased and they pretend to be news.

[InkL0sed]

Sorry about the rate of posting, I don't usually do these multiple posts

Finally, I think a lot of your Glenn Beck concerns are taken out of context. Additionally, I think we're splitting hairs on a lot of this stuff. Glenn Beck saying "he's going to take away your guns" is akin to Keith Olbermann saying "he's going to throw 10,000 American-Muslims in jail." Everyone knows neither thing is going to happen.

Obama said he would not take away second amendment rights. Meanwhile, Bush had just passed a bill that looked scarily like the Alien and Sedition Acts, for example. I also don't think Olbermann said "he's going to throw 10,000 American-Muslims in jail." He certainly implied it was possible, which it may have been at the time. We now have the benefit of hindsight, but at the time, I'd say it was much more reasonable to suggest that something like that might happen than to say that Obama will take away your guns.

[thegreekdog]

I'd say it was much more reasonable to suggest that something like that might happen than to say that Obama will take away your guns.

Wow... I completely disagree there. Do you really think it's more reasonable to suggest every practicing Muslim in America will go to jail than to suggest that guns will be banned in the United States?

[GabonX]

There's also the issue that Beck is saying Obama will take away your guns, when he has in fact said just the opposite.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_ ... ontrol.htm

His actions speek louder than words. Every chance he has had to limit or abolish gun rights, in his state or outside of it, he has taken.

He's also in favor of having people register fire arms which has been the precurser to confiscation in other countries..

And in California...

[GabonX]

So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't trust Obama because he's a liar.

[AndyDufresne]

Damn right. Registering firearms can lead to no good. Next they'll be getting our fingerprints, looking at our taxes and personal identity---soon we'll be like that horrid movie Minority Report. Goodness gracious.


--Andy

[InkL0sed]

I'd say it was much more reasonable to suggest that something like that might happen than to say that Obama will take away your guns.

Wow... I completely disagree there. Do you really think it's more reasonable to suggest every practicing Muslim in America will go to jail than to suggest that guns will be banned in the United States?

In context, yes. Bush had just passed a bill.

Obama, on the other hand, has said he will not ban guns.

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/o ... 08.article

President Obama, after meeting Thursday with Mexico's president, signaled he is backing away from his pledge to renew the U.S. ban on assault weapons but still wishes to stop the cross-border flow of guns that wind up in the arsenals of drug cartels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 ... ce-mexico/

And since he has done nothing about guns on office, campaign pledges are just as legitimate. So:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... obama.html
http://www.truthfightsback.com/smear/293/

[GabonX]

Damn right. Registering firearms can lead to no good. Next they'll be getting our fingerprints, looking at our taxes and personal identity---soon we'll be like that horrid movie Minority Report. Goodness gracious.


--Andy

Before espousing the merits of gun registration, do a bit of research regarding how many crimes have been solved as a result. There have been next to none, anywhere, in any state or country.

*Edit: This is despite huge amounts of money being poured into the registration system, though, I guess by Obama's definition this would qualify as "stimulus."

[GabonX]

I'd say it was much more reasonable to suggest that something like that might happen than to say that Obama will take away your guns.

Wow... I completely disagree there. Do you really think it's more reasonable to suggest every practicing Muslim in America will go to jail than to suggest that guns will be banned in the United States?

In context, yes. Bush had just passed a bill.

Obama, on the other hand, has said he will not ban guns.

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/o ... 08.article

President Obama, after meeting Thursday with Mexico's president, signaled he is backing away from his pledge to renew the U.S. ban on assault weapons but still wishes to stop the cross-border flow of guns that wind up in the arsenals of drug cartels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 ... ce-mexico/

And since he has done nothing about guns on office, campaign pledges are just as legitimate. So:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... obama.html
http://www.truthfightsback.com/smear/293/

Fienstein and Pelosi have both made comments regarding the fact that they intend to go through with anti gun legislation but that the time is not right politically.

He will wait at least two years, probably until his second term before he AGAIN shows his true colors on this.

[captainwalrus]

They are different because bush could have potentialy ( and may, since without a fair trial there is nothing to concreatly say that the people are terrorists) imprisoned people in harsh conditions for the rest of their life, taking away all of thier freedoms, not just guns. But obama could just take away people's right to have a means of personal defence against other people using thier means of defence to atack others. A ban on cirtain guns cannot compare to a law that says that the president has the right to detain american citizens without a trial.

[thegreekdog]

Wow. I'm truly surprised at the reaction to this (vis-a-vis internment camps for Muslims vs. banning guns).

A stastical sample of the posters here would likely show that 0% are for internment camps for Muslims while probably 50% (or more) are for banning guns in the US. Isn't that enough circumstantial evidence to show that it is more reasonable to expect the banning of guns over the internment of Muslims?

[AndyDufresne]

Before espousing the merits of gun registration, do a bit of research regarding how many crimes have been solved as a result. There have been next to none, anywhere, in any state or country.

*Edit: This is despite huge amounts of money being poured into the registration system, though, I guess by Obama's definition this would qualify as "stimulus."

Perfect sense...makes sense not to even try.


--Andy

[SultanOfSurreal]

Wow. I'm truly surprised at the reaction to this (vis-a-vis internment camps for Muslims vs. banning guns).

A stastical sample of the posters here would likely show that 0% are for internment camps for Muslims while probably 50% (or more) are for banning guns in the US. Isn't that enough circumstantial evidence to show that it is more reasonable to expect the banning of guns over the internment of Muslims?

I am sorry, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read

[Neoteny]

Wow. I'm truly surprised at the reaction to this (vis-a-vis internment camps for Muslims vs. banning guns).

A stastical sample of the posters here would likely show that 0% are for internment camps for Muslims while probably 50% (or more) are for banning guns in the US. Isn't that enough circumstantial evidence to show that it is more reasonable to expect the banning of guns over the internment of Muslims?

I am sorry, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read

I agree. Probably 10-15% of this forum would be pro-internment camp.

[john9blue]

I am sorry, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read

Your post definitely trumps it. At least he gave, you know, reasons.

[Frigidus]

Wow. I'm truly surprised at the reaction to this (vis-a-vis internment camps for Muslims vs. banning guns).

A stastical sample of the posters here would likely show that 0% are for internment camps for Muslims while probably 50% (or more) are for banning guns in the US. Isn't that enough circumstantial evidence to show that it is more reasonable to expect the banning of guns over the internment of Muslims?

I am sorry, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read

I agree. Probably 10-15% of this forum would be pro-internment camp.

You're being pretty generous...

[SultanOfSurreal]

I am sorry, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read

Your post definitely trumps it. At least he gave, you know, reasons.

okay you troglodyte, let's look at the components of the argument presented

I saw a certain sentiment a lot on the internet therefore it has popular support in real life.

This is also why the second season of Lesbians Vomiting Shit into Each Others' Assholes is the highest rated show on television right now.

This means that another, completely unrelated sentiment, which I have seen little of ON THE GODDAMN INTERNET, is unpopular

Did you know that no one in America speaks Greenlandic? I mean, no Americans here speak Greenlandic, so no one in America does either. That's how it works, right?

-The government, which has never ever taken an unpopular action, ever, would surely follow the will of the people on these matters, so aptly established as it was by posters on an internet forum for a boardgame

please don't make me elaborate further, my brain hurts

[john9blue]

please don't make me elaborate further, my brain hurts

I... wow... I didn't think you were actually incapable of elaborating. Sorry for being so insensitive.

[SultanOfSurreal]

please don't make me elaborate further, my brain hurts

I... wow... I didn't think you were actually incapable of elaborating. Sorry for being so insensitive.

so what's it like taking every single specious non-argument you see at face value

it must be confusing

[thegreekdog]

I am sorry, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read

Wow... really? That's really amazing. I feel like I should win some award, but, frankly, I'm not sure you are being genuine when you indicate that it's the stupid thing you've ever read. Additionally, it would be nice to have some reasons behind your statement; I mean, when I give my acceptance speech for "SultanOfSurreal's Stupid Thing I've Ever Read" award, I want to be able to talk about the effect my stupid thing had on you.

It's always nice when posters can add something to the discussion... let's see if you can do it. I believe in you!

[SultanOfSurreal]

I am sorry, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read

Wow... really? That's really amazing. I feel like I should win some award, but, frankly, I'm not sure you are being genuine when you indicate that it's the stupid thing you've ever read. Additionally, it would be nice to have some reasons behind your statement; I mean, when I give my acceptance speech for "SultanOfSurreal's Stupid Thing I've Ever Read" award, I want to be able to talk about the effect my stupid thing had on you.

It's always nice when posters can add something to the discussion... let's see if you can do it. I believe in you!

no I admit defeat. the vague estimation of a never-conducted straw poll of people posting on an internet message board is surely the most accurate barometer of public opinion available to us