Some of the morons at Comedy Central's Sanity gathering

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Beck is a pundit. It is his job to stir people up, and make them angry. So they will listen to him and he makes money.

Stewart and Colbert are comedic pundits. They parody and make fun, so people will listen to them, and they make money.

They only difference: One is out of anger, the other comedy.

I don't see much anger from Beck. And I don't see much comedy from Stewart and Colbert. Eye of the beholder perhaps.

The 24 hour news pundit concept has negatively impacted the view of the American people, focused on the fail, instead of the ingenuity and resilience of the American People... A disservice, at best.

Worse, the new opening, where PACs and special interests can now flood the airwaves with their high dollar commercials, has pushed the general public's view further down towards failure.

I don't think that this issue is solved by less speech. I think the problem would be worse if we somehow restrict the variety of free speech. FREE. SPEECH.

When or if punditry fails to attract an audience, then the pundit will cease to become an industry and it will devolve into a no-profit hobby at best. For instance, this already happened with Air America.

There are distinct differences between philosophies and no amount of "why can't we all get along" will reconcile them. It is possible to construct a vague set of platitudes which would as comfortably spew from the pie-hole of any politician, but once it gets down to implementation the problems arise. For instance the Modern Whig Party has a nice set of platitudes that about any Republican or Democrat could mouth--

http://www.modernwhig.org/

However when it comes down to implementation, it is basically just a center-line big government plan. Which may appeal to big government types, but not especially to me-- so what is new and shiny about big government programs and tax-policy social engineering?

The Modern Whig Party - Issues

Republicans and Democrats could rip off the initial platitudes and create their own versions of programs and tax-policy social engineering. Though the platitudes sound good, perhaps the actual cooked dish is not very tasty regardless of the exact recipe.

I suspect people are more likely to get angry when the govt is doing something TO them, rather than when the govt is not doing enough. So IMO the best way to reduce anger is to reduce govt. Libertarian.

====

Some say that politics has always been dirty and divisive in the USA.

The Complete History of Dirty Politics: A Q&A on Anything for a Vote - NYTimes.com

"Historian and author Joseph Cummins is no stranger to the dirty underside of the American democratic process. His latest book, Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises, chronicles the campaign smears, attacks, and misdirections that have typified U.S. elections since George Washington’s win in 1789. The upshot of Cummins’s book: campaigns are no dirtier now than they were in the past. He agreed to answer our questions about his book.

Q: From your research, have you found any overarching trends among presidential candidates, political parties, and campaigns?

A: Anything for a Vote came about because I was fascinated by commentators in recent presidential contests claiming that American politics is getting nastier and nastier — lots of hand-wringing over whether democracy would survive the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Every election, it seemed, was getting dirtier and dirtier.

But is this really true? After researching every presidential contest from 1789 to 2004, my answer is that elections are not getting dirtier. They’re just as dirty as they have always been. Whether that’s a heartening trend depends on your point of view. I myself am a great fan of the unruly democratic process, which I think will always be unruly.

In terms of trends, a rough rule of thumb is that incumbent parties tend to play the most dirty tricks, perhaps because they have the ways and means to do so. It’s also true that parties with the strongest ideologies — be they Democratic or Republican — fight dirtier, possibly because they are not only pushing a candidate, but an entire way of life."

[raydog1]

Keith Olberman is not BFF's with Stewart now:

Keith Olbermann: Jon Stewart Jumped The Shark At Rally

[mikegideon]

Keith Olberman is not BFF's with Stewart now:

Keith Olbermann: Jon Stewart Jumped The Shark At Rally

Olberman... one more asshat to throw on the pile. It's ain't about which side they're on, it's the constant distortion that comes outa their mouths.

[PC7]

I love seeing my tax dollars at work. The economy is so bad, a lot of people can’t find jobs, right…..I guess not if one is not looking and has time to go to this foolish rally. Why, because most of this people are living on my money in the form of food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc. I wish I had that much time, but I’m working. There are a million other things I would rather do than go to a political rally.

It would be awesome if in the middle of this “sanity” rally the Selective Service board informed everyone that this was a draft board and all of them would be on plane to Iraqi or Afghanistan that night. A deployment would give these folks some character, as most have probability never worked an honest day of work in their life.

CK1, if Tennessee is so dumb, why don’t you leave? There many highways and airports that will take you from here. Same goes for this forum giving you a headache, simple fix, don’t sign on…..

[mikegideon]

I love seeing my tax dollars at work. The economy is so bad, a lot of people can’t find jobs, right…..I guess not if one is not looking and has time to go to this foolish rally. Why, because most of this people are living on my money in the form of food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc. I wish I had that much time, but I’m working. There are a million other things I would rather do than go to a political rally.

It would be awesome if in the middle of this “sanity” rally the Selective Service board informed everyone that this was a draft board and all of them would be on plane to Iraqi or Afghanistan that night. A deployment would give these folks some character, as most have probability never worked an honest day of work in their life.

CK1, if Tennessee is so dumb, why don’t you leave? There many highways and airports that will take you from here. Same goes for this forum giving you a headache, simple fix, don’t sign on…..

I only know two that actually went. One is a school teacher, and the other is CK1. I think both have jobs. Enjoy your cable TV.

[Links2k]

Beck isn't evil... he's delusional. It's hard to say which group has the most racists, especially since there are lots of black racists too. The point (that you seem to be missing) is that it's a very small percentage of the whole. You and I are friends, but disagree alot politically. Frankly, i think mostly we disagree on who we trust. You're certainly not the enemy. That honor goes to the people that take advantage of BOTH of us every day. It ain't just Liberals.

PREACH!

[Links2k]

PC7 "It would be awesome if in the middle of this “sanity” rally the Selective Service board informed everyone that this was a draft board and all of them would be on plane to Iraqi or Afghanistan that night. A deployment would give these folks some character, as most have probability never worked an honest day of work in their life".

A draft sounds like a great idea. I have always been pro-draft. If we have a draft and every young man or woman had to go to war I don't think that we would be so eager to fight wars. I think that our concentration would turn to real national defense.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Those folks have been conditioned. The message was against that conditioning. Hopefully, they learned something.

As if the political left hasn't been conditioned as well? Really? You seem to be ignoring much of your own arguments here.

[mikegideon]

As if the political left hasn't been conditioned as well? Really? You seem to be ignoring much of your own arguments here.

Who do you think I was talking about when I said those folks??? The folks at the rally. My guess is that they were mostly from the left, since none of them had jobs

[LagerHead]

Can we who watched it agree that:

Kid Rock was awesome!

No.

Ozzy would've been awesome if he wasn't interrupted by the lame comedy bit.

Nope.

Sheryl Crow kept screwing up the lyrics.

Sure, but only if you agree that she isn't worth seeing when she nails the lyrics.

2 of the O'Jays looked half-dead.

I think this one's been covered.

[...]A draft sounds like a great idea. I have always been pro-draft. If we have a draft and every young man or woman had to go to war I don't think that we would be so eager to fight wars. I think that our concentration would turn to real national defense.

The only problem with that theory is that the ones who decide when to go to war don't have to go to war. If I don't trust my government to provide police protection to me in my own town, why would I trust them to make a decision in my best interest in global matters?

[mikegideon]

Yo AR,

Clean out your message box. Now, back to our regularly scheduled pissin' match

[USMCJG]

A draft sounds like a great idea. I have always been pro-draft. If we have a draft and every young man or woman had to go to war I don't think that we would be so eager to fight wars.

Or at least fight to win, and not to avoid hurting feelings.

[East_TN_Patriot]

As a public service announcement, I'd like to take this opportunity to hopefully remind some of those same idiots I'm talking about that our founding-fathers just happend to be "east-coast liberal elites", and that if Lincoln had not been assassinated (and Andrew Johnson hadn't been such an easy-to-bribe southern-sympathizing wuss...) many of the same old-boys-club/aristocratic organizations and influences that have them regurgitating their nonsense and voting against their own economic interests (whether knowingly or unknowingly) would not even exist. Turn off Fox news and read some history books fools, TN is one of the dumbest states in the country already and there's no need to make it any worse.

You, sir, need to rethink your position a little bit. In case you never actually bothered to look at a history book, when the US was founded everyone was an "east-coast liberal elite" since the entire nation was concentrated west of the Appalachian Mountains primarily along the coastline and in the northeast. Also, the concept of "liberal" government in 1776 is far different than the "progressive" brand of liberal politics now. Lincoln was far from a God-send for this nation; many historians are now starting to recognize how flawed his ideology and policies were. For starters, he was a racist and an elitist. Far from the ideological inspiration we are taught in school. Andrew Johnson was always a southern sympathizer, which is why he got elected VP in the first place. He was chosen as the VP candidate because he was from Tennessee and they thought he would balance out the ticket and attract southern votes. He too was a racist - as were most whites in America at that time. So let's not pretend that these two held some moral high-ground here.

Frankly, sir, although I do agree with some of your points about the tone of political rhetoric today, your decision to refer to differing opinions and their speaker as "BS," "kooks," "idiots," and "fools" shows me that you are the typical left-wing thinker who resorts to insults and name-calling when faced with an opinion you don't agree with. It's interesting that you choose to engage in the exact behavior that you say is the problem in America. The simple fact of the matter is that we clearly disagree on what is in our "own economic interests" and I tend to believe that democratic-socialism is not in our nation's economic interest. If you think that makes me a "kook," "fool," or "idiot" then you need to rethink your strategy because I assure you that I am none of these and have the resume to illustrate that fact. Rather, sir, you are the type of person who proves the very flawed logic of the political left that exists in a self-righteous haze and believes they have the answers to all of society's woes. Just take a look at the very left-wing "progressive" havens you appear to support and show me one that has even a shred of economic or social prosperity. When you can do that, come talk to me. Otherwise, take your insults, baseless criticisms, and hypocritical rhetoric and cram it.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Who do you think I was talking about when I said those folks??? The folks at the rally. My guess is that they were mostly from the left, since none of them had jobs

OK, sorry I misunderstood you there.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yo AR,

Clean out your message box. Now, back to our regularly scheduled pissin' match

Still working on it. A bunch of 'em on there:D

[LagerHead]

You, sir, need to rethink your position a little bit. In case you never actually bothered to look at a history book, when the US was founded everyone was an "east-coast liberal elite" since the entire nation was concentrated west of the Appalachian Mountains primarily along the coastline and in the northeast. Also, the concept of "liberal" government in 1776 is far different than the "progressive" brand of liberal politics now. Lincoln was far from a God-send for this nation; many historians are now starting to recognize how flawed his ideology and policies were. For starters, he was a racist and an elitist. Far from the ideological inspiration we are taught in school. Andrew Johnson was always a southern sympathizer, which is why he got elected VP in the first place. He was chosen as the VP candidate because he was from Tennessee and they thought he would balance out the ticket and attract southern votes. He too was a racist - as were most whites in America at that time. So let's not pretend that these two held some moral high-ground here.

Frankly, sir, although I do agree with some of your points about the tone of political rhetoric today, your decision to refer to differing opinions and their speaker as "BS," "kooks," "idiots," and "fools" shows me that you are the typical left-wing thinker who resorts to insults and name-calling when faced with an opinion you don't agree with. It's interesting that you choose to engage in the exact behavior that you say is the problem in America. The simple fact of the matter is that we clearly disagree on what is in our "own economic interests" and I tend to believe that democratic-socialism is not in our nation's economic interest. If you think that makes me a "kook," "fool," or "idiot" then you need to rethink your strategy because I assure you that I am none of these and have the resume to illustrate that fact. Rather, sir, you are the type of person who proves the very flawed logic of the political left that exists in a self-righteous haze and believes they have the answers to all of society's woes. Just take a look at the very left-wing "progressive" havens you appear to support and show me one that has even a shred of economic or social prosperity. When you can do that, come talk to me. Otherwise, take your insults, baseless criticisms, and hypocritical rhetoric and cram it.

Right you are. Lincoln did not believe that blacks and whites should live together. He believed that they should be given their own area of the country or sent back to Africa.

And the founding fathers were not liberal. They were conservative. One of their biggest concerns was limited government states' rights. You see when the English started taking more and more control the states were losing their rights to the monarchy across the pond through the formation of forced confederations, like the Dominion of New England. The Dominion was forced upon the colonies by James II and combined Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire into a single government under a "royal governor."

The states were so against confederations of any type that they unanimously rejected a proposal by Ben Franklin to form a confederation of states for the purposes of defense against the Indians. I could go on, but you get the point. These are not the stances a liberal would take, and certainly not a modern progressive.

[Rightwinger]

yep

[Guest TN_Mike]

Most Nazi's didn't hate Jews, yet the Nazi's killed around 6 million of them. Point is, you are defined by the company you keep. The Tea Party accusations keep changing because they aren't earned or true. Liberals, Socialist, Muslims, terrorist, and politicians have worked hard to earn their identities. The fact Stewart can't tell the difference between liberals and the Tea party movement shows his lack of serious intellect. Add to it the fact he his attacking the machine that makes him anything other than a late night comic is humorous to me.

I agree with this 100%

You, sir, need to rethink your position a little bit. In case you never actually bothered to look at a history book, when the US was founded everyone was an "east-coast liberal elite" since the entire nation was concentrated west of the Appalachian Mountains primarily along the coastline and in the northeast. Also, the concept of "liberal" government in 1776 is far different than the "progressive" brand of liberal politics now. Lincoln was far from a God-send for this nation; many historians are now starting to recognize how flawed his ideology and policies were. For starters, he was a racist and an elitist. Far from the ideological inspiration we are taught in school. Andrew Johnson was always a southern sympathizer, which is why he got elected VP in the first place. He was chosen as the VP candidate because he was from Tennessee and they thought he would balance out the ticket and attract southern votes. He too was a racist - as were most whites in America at that time. So let's not pretend that these two held some moral high-ground here.

Frankly, sir, although I do agree with some of your points about the tone of political rhetoric today, your decision to refer to differing opinions and their speaker as "BS," "kooks," "idiots," and "fools" shows me that you are the typical left-wing thinker who resorts to insults and name-calling when faced with an opinion you don't agree with. It's interesting that you choose to engage in the exact behavior that you say is the problem in America. The simple fact of the matter is that we clearly disagree on what is in our "own economic interests" and I tend to believe that democratic-socialism is not in our nation's economic interest. If you think that makes me a "kook," "fool," or "idiot" then you need to rethink your strategy because I assure you that I am none of these and have the resume to illustrate that fact. Rather, sir, you are the type of person who proves the very flawed logic of the political left that exists in a self-righteous haze and believes they have the answers to all of society's woes. Just take a look at the very left-wing "progressive" havens you appear to support and show me one that has even a shred of economic or social prosperity. When you can do that, come talk to me. Otherwise, take your insults, baseless criticisms, and hypocritical rhetoric and cram it.

As well as this. 150%.

Edited November 3, 2010 by TN_Mike
additional info

[East_TN_Patriot]

And the founding fathers were not liberal. They were conservative.

Well, actually they were liberal, just not as we define liberal today. Conservative means that you don't want change, liberal means you support change (although some, including me, argue that these are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive characterizations of political ideology). Clearly, the founders were not conservatives, at least as they saw it in their time. They were very liberal for their temporal moment because they had adopted the Enlightenment principles of free will, rationality, natural rights, and the social contract. These were extremely liberal views for their time since they essentially challenged the entire foundational structure of western society at that time, a structure that was grounded in religious justifications for social class, social structure, government, economy, and even human behavior. To challenge this system was to challenge all of society and God as well. The founders were very radical indeed. I think the best way to classify them is with the label "classical liberal" because it reflects the very radical ideas they incorporated into our society, but clarifies them from the current progressive liberals who have a fundamentally different view of what they think society should be. I guess in a way, the modern-day liberals are no more radical than the founders were in their day and I suspect the conservatives of 1776 were as outraged as the conservatives of today in response to challenges to the established social order. I'm not trying to suggest that political systems are value-neutral, far from it, but just trying to illustrate the difficulty in applying the terms "liberal" and "conservative" when discussing time periods over two centuries apart. Sometimes I wonder what people will be saying in another 200 years about us and the current conservative movement. Will we be seen as patriots or as supporters of a tyrannical and unjust social structure just as we say about the British of the 18th century? I would hope not, and I strongly believe that the classical liberal form of government the founders established here is the best chance for maximizing liberty and opportunity.

Edited November 9, 2010 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest TNReb]

Man . . . As I was reading through this thread I was reminded of somthing my Mama used to say. "It's good we don't all like the same things." Now I think I can add a corollary to that: "And that sure makes things a LOT more interesting!" For what it's worth, I would describe myself as a God-fearing, Bible-Believing, gun-totin', Reagan conservative. My best friend in the world is a yellow-dog democrat who wouldn't vote for a republican on a bet. We don't agree on a lot of things, but one thing we do agree on is that we keep it civil. A recognition that neither of us has all the right answers helps. In the words of the immortal Sheriff Andy Taylor, "Ya'll act like ya got some sense."