Cool News
Election Day!! Learn Who Joins Jon Stewart For THE MIDTERM MIDTACULAR!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
I am – Hercules!!
Do you want to learn of the Democrats’ comeback from Bill O’Reilly or Wolf Blitzer??
Of course not! Well maybe!! But Jon Stewart has Dan Rather as a contributor for Tuesday night’s “Indecision 2006: The Midterm Midtacular”!
Read more of who tonight joins Comedy Central's fake news here.
$17.49 Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut!!
The Superman Ultimate Collector's Edition!!
$17.49 Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut!!
-
+ Expand All
-
Can't wait for this tomorrow! DEms take back the Congress!
-
Wednesday begins the race for 2008, political victories only last about a day.
-
sorry, i felt compelled to write that.
-
It's not fake. Funny or spoofed...but they don't make it up...they just add thier opinon.
-
New touchscreen voting machine. Interestingly enough, it generates a paper trail.
-
They actually did build a crocodile-infested moat around the pages' dormitory, as reported on the Daily Show?
-
Good point. However, I do agree with Drworm2002 that "fake news" doesn't exactly fit what the Daily Show does. It certainly *used* to describe the show, pre-Indecision 2000. When somebody says TDS is just a "fake news show" or "just a comedy show," I ask them to name another such show with a freekin' Peabody Award.
-
Finally, a job he can do.
-
So this is lateral career move for him.
-
To be honest, it's the correspondent segments that are usually the fake news. JS himself sticks to factual things, however, the whole "reworking context to make a joke" really removes any claims to truthiness in its reporting.
Granted, a lot of the other 'true' news programs do the same thing, but at least their intention is still to remain factual.
Is it just me, or does JS show his biases a lot more than he used to? I'm concerned he might fall apart tonight if the Dems don't take the house. -
they own all politicians. And if Daily Show is fake news, what is FOX News? I mean they both kind of do the same thing when you think about it. Anyway, that segment they did after Cheney shot that dude....when they went hunting, that was my favorite.
-
The Daily Show is a Comedy Show guys, end of story. Any news they convey that's actually real is purely accidental. Sure, it's all written by liberal white harvard jewish guys but it's a comedy show, with a definite bias. Ask them, they'll say: Comedy is their only goal. They feel no political obligation (and shouldn't).
-
When it was more even handed in mocking both sides, Democrat and Republican. I remember watching the first show after Bush won in 2004 and Stewart looked like he was ready to strangle kittens. Since then the show has had a decidedly Democrat/liberal leaning. The show is still funny, just not as funny as it was before Steward picked sides. If I want to watch political pundits in action I will just picture in picture O'Reilly and Olbermann and watch them foam at the mouth..
-
When "both sides" are running the country, I'll agree with you. If you're going to satirize the establishment, and the establishment in all branches of government consists of one party... I hope you can finish the logic. If not, there's little hope.
-
1) Anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to a better job is insane. Both parties suck. They're entrenched, corrupt, and need ouster.
2) Anyone who thinks the economy is "failed" is also insane. Pretty much every economic indicator is positive right now. As far as I can tell, people are judging the economy solely on gas prices. -
upwards, not forwards ... and always twirling TWIRLING towards freedom!
-
http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/03/news/economy/jobs_october/index.htm
Unemployment is at its lowest in 5 years.
I'd address your other items, but since you get your economic data from fantasyland, I don't really see the point. -
From the same link:
The tighter job market is apparently helping to lift wages, according to the Labor Department report, which showed that average wages rose 6 cents to $16.91 an hour last month, a shade above what economists had forecast.
What was your other one? Oh yeah, inflation. Let's see what I can find on that. -
Since higher wages push up inflation. I don't know if I'll be able to find a recent number that doesn't include the wage impact.
-
themselves:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/06/news/economy/fed_pianalto.reut/index.htm
-
I see the left is still impervious to facts. We have basically full employment, wages are rising, the DOW at historic highs, tax revenues at all-time highs, it goes on and on.
-
Heck, you're not even paying attention. If more minimum wage jobs were added, the average salary would go down. It didn't.
Seriously, leave the economics discussions to those of us who use facts, not rhetoric. You just paint your side (which, I might add, is partially my side) in a bad light. -
The last quarters have shown weak GDP growth. However, that's likely the result of the Fed hikes, and the analysts in the second article I linked see a favorable upturn in the next quarter once that works itself out. But we're not in an economic paradise by any means; gas prices are still higher than in the past and that is putting pressure on inflation. However, since Americans are TOO FUCKING STUPID they've started buying SUVs again because gas prices have gone done recently.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/01/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_taylor_SUVsales.fortune/index.htm
God I hate these people. -
Unemployment numbers are calculated by those signing up for benefits, not those whose benefits have run out.
Home ownership is also at a record-high level, and the economy has withstood a number of huge shocks like 9/11 and Katrina. I know you hate to think of the US as succeeding, or its people as doing well, but there it is.
-
Today is a good day.
-
Gas costs now what it did in the spring of 2005. Yes that's higher than in the past but 1/3 lower than a few months ago. Did I say economic paradise? It's a very very strong economy, and anyone doubting that, or making ridiculous claims of all-time high unemployment is in need of a clue-by-four.
I'm not posting anymore on this thread, busy day today, so flame away! -
They've ALWAYS been based on who signs up for them. So historical comparisons are apples and apples. Clinton administration constantly touted being under 5 (and rightfully so), so there's no reason to criticize the Bush administration when they're also under 5.
-
Be very careful. There is a better than even chance that if the Democrats take the House today, they'll lose the Presidency in 2008. Recent history is replete with parties taking control and overplaying their hand. Heck, it's what the Bush administration has does for the last 4 years.
Consider this: in 1994, the Republicans took over the House for the first time since the 50s. The stage was perfectly set for a Presidential victory in 1996. But Gingrich et al overplayed their hand and Clinton wins easily.
Fast-forward to 1998. The Republicans stupidly impeach Clinton. What happens? They lose seats in 1998. Do you know how often the opposition party has lost seats in an off-year election since WWII? THREE TIMES. 2002 because of 9/11; 1998 because of the impeachment, and I think the third time was back during Korea or Vietnam.
This last point holds two important lessons. 1) The Democrats should be gaining seats today regardless; history dictates as much. 2) Any overt move against Bush will backfire HARD. Those of you nursing a naive belief that Bush will be impeached if the Dems take control should put that back in the closet with the bullshit about Bush reinstating the draft; it ain't going to happen. Or if it does, the Dems will pay big time.
Which brings me to 2008. The Democrats have already made a mistake, and it's two years away! Yep, I'm talking Lieberman. Why the hell would you challenge a popular member of your party in a primary? Why? How stupid could you be? Lieberman is going to win as an Independent, Democrats in the state of Connecticut will not have his coattails to ride, and if the party makeup in the Senate is 50D, 49R, 1I, you better believe that 1I is going to side with the 49R who didn't betray him.
Karl Rove is still an evil genius. The Republicans, if they don't draft McCain, will have a moderate Governor running for President in 2008. And the Democrats are going to try to run on Iraq and it's going to cost them the election, because what the hell does Mitt Romney (for example) have to do with Iraq?
The best thing that could happen in this election is if the Dems take the house with a VERY small minority, and the Republicans maintain control of the Senate. That will set up (hopefully) a campaign in 2008 that avoids the mistakes from the past from both sides.
Don't bet on it though. -
Read that as "bare majority"
-
but I think that's only relative to his increasing frustration with this administration. For me, he's still the little guy who says what I'm thinking and calls bullshit when he sees it on both sides. There's just more bullshit from the one side right now, especially because they're saying and doing more. But they certainly have not stopped making fun of democrats. And more often than not, it's the media itself that is the target of their ire. Colbert takes this one step further and adds another level of irony to things - and sometimes you think he might actually believe some of the outrageous things his 'character' says. But I think he's still the most brilliant thing ever to happen to political entertainment.
-
Yeah - Stewart has definitely been showing biased a bit more. I've noticed it since the 2004 elections. I think he was a bit of a broken man.
I also think, though, that he doesn't have much faith in the current squad of "Duh-mocrats" as he calls them. Not that he doesn't agree with the party's politics, but rather the way they shy away from fighting the Republicans on almost anything.
I think he realizes that he himself has become something of a political lighthouse for young democrats, so he feels a responsibility to push his views more obviously.
In terms of content -- you are correct in that the correspondence pieces are generally the "fake news" area, but I still say they offer actual information but simply obfuscate it with (sometimes too much) satire.
Ah well. I'm already reading that there are voting glitches. Should be a fun night! -
Because I don't trust the medium, I can't trust the message. As much as I despise Rush, O'Reilly, and Olberman, at least I know that they're not acting, and therefore I can take what they say into consideration without having to worry about intention or sarcasm.
That doesn't work with Colbert. Is he making a statement because he believes that's what someone like him would say, or is he making a statement that you're supposed to view ironically because the person saying it doesn't believe what the character does.
It's a sticky wicket. -
There's a way to know if the Daily Show is more biased against the right- let's give the democrats control of congress and the White House, then if the Daily Show pulls its punches I will humbly admit that they have a left-wing bias. I think this is the reasonable thing to do.
-
Comes from sniffing glue at work.
-
but the Average Wage has NEVER gone down:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/awiseries.html
No, average wage compared to inflation is a different issue. So if we look at inflation here:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp, here's what we find:
2005 AWI: 3.66%, Inflation 3.39%. Wages up vs inflation (admittedly barely--but that's the Katrina effect).
2004 AWI: 4.65%, Inflation 2.68%. Wages up strong vs inflation.
2003 AWI: 2.44%, Inflation 2.27%. Wages up barely vs inflation.
2002 AWI: 1.00%, Inflation 1.59%. Wages drop (see below).
2001 AWI: 2.39%, Inflation 2.83%. Wages drop (again, see below).
Now, 2001 and 2002 are both products of the post-2000 economic recession. And if this were 2002 and you were arguing that there was a wage problem I'd agree with you. However, the data from 2003-2005, coupled with the data I linked to in an earlier post, shows that wages are increasing both in general and versus inflation, and thus it's not a valid argument to claim wages are going down.
As for unemployment, again, the metrics are still the same historically. Bill Clinton has a web page that trumpets his unemployment rate being below 5, and the idea that Clinton's unemployment below 5 is somehow better than Bush's is foolishness. -
And already there are reports of voter intimidation. Don't you love the smell of desperation in the morning?
-
The government does not have as much of an effect on the economy as people believe. Never have. Short of converting to communism, the government will never have a huge effect on the economy. Yes, some programs can cause some flowing of money this way or that way. But for the most part, the economy is a wild machine that the Fed Reserve tries to tame but isn't always successful.
To put it another way, Walmart probably has a bigger impact on the economy than the government does. -
Unemployment numbers across different years are apples to apples but it can still be deceptive because it doesn’t include people that have stopped looking for work altogether. There aren’t official government numbers for a lot of this data but economic surveys suggest that many more people are out of work longer, using up all of their unemployment benefits, and when they do go back to work, receiving lower wages than under the Clinton administration. Things are not good for the middle and working class. The bottom line is that Bush has created a net of about 3 million jobs in the 6 years he’s been in office (which is about 42,000 per month). Considering that the economy needs to generate about 100,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth, there are far more people out of work now than when Clinton was generating 20 million jobs during his 2 terms as President. No matter how you look at it, that does not spell a successful economy. It’s improving, sure, but that’s only because Bush dropped it into an abyss when he took over. I can only get so excited about the small glimmer of light we are now seeing as we attempt to crawl out of a hole of Bush’s making.
-
Also, remember, Bush didn't create any economic problem. The recession started before he took office, and it was exasperated by 9/11. And Clinton's not to blame either. The economy is bigger than all of them.
-
Isn't economics, but how Americans feel about the war in Iraq and the approach the country is taking in that arena. A vote for republicans today is a vote to keep the country exactly the way it is, and poll after poll suggests that the majority of Americans want a change.
-
If the President was running.
He's not. And Congress can't compel Bush to bring home the troops.
So in an election that should be dominated by talk of social security, health care, education, environment, etc., we have politicians running on Iraq and people voting on Iraq.
And this depresses me mightily. -
Comedy Central is now projecting that Dan Rather will pull more lame metaphors out of his ass.
-
Because they won't. I'm just saying that that is the big point here. Americans are sick of how things are going. Politics in general have disgusted me lately, from the bombardment of bickering ads (all paid for by corporations with agendas) to the blatant voter intimidation and fraud that's going on during this election, I'm just so fucking sick of all of it. I don't blame Americans for wanting a change. I do, too.
-
The Republicans control the voting machines. I foresee a landslide.
-
So, when I say this I have no hope one way or the other. I have a feeling that the Dems are either going to not retake Congress, or if they do retake it, it may be a lot closer than is expected. I think my main reason for thinking that is that it seems like everyone you hear is just assuming the Reps will get their asses kicked. And I always like to side against the "conventional wisdom", which has often been wrong. Though, I've often been wrong, too, and have been known to talk out my ass.
We'll see what happens soon enough. And yes, I think both parties suck. And I quote The Who: "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss." -
How else can you explain my response to BizarroJerry happening before he said anything?
-
You've gone back in time and responded to my message before I posted it!
-
But this whole "private corporations controlling the electronic voting machine outputs" makes me a little uneasy. I wouldn't be totally surprised if the republicans had some sort of surprise 11th hour comeback. Also Chrth, while I think all the issues you listed above are important, it's not as though Iraq is a non-issue in this election. It still is very much a part of life for americans, and as a result, something that deserves to be considered come ANY election time.
-
like.
In North Carolina, we're not voting for Senator this year, so the only federal candidate is Congressperson. Now, let's say I'm pissed at the Bush administration about Iraq, and I decide to vote Democratic this year. That means I'm going to vote the Straight Democratic Ticket (do NOT get me started as to how much I hate that such a thing exists). Out of 7 partisan candidates, only 1 actually has anything remotely to do with Iraq. What does the Sheriff of Guilford County have to do with Iraq?!? Yet the Republican Sheriff, who actually may be more in line with my way of thinking, is denied my vote because of Iraq.
Granted, the problem in this scenario is the uneducated voter. But there are way too many people who are going to vote this way this year and I find it ridiculous. And the candidates (and their parties) don't help matters by trying to frame the entire election as a revote of 2004. (sorry if this is a double post) -
You need to put time and effort into deciding who to vote for, and too often people either vote for people without knowing about them or don't vote altogether under the excuse of "not being up on the issues". Your argument about people's feelings about Iraq coloring this election against the republicans is also assuming a bit on your part that Iraq is the only thing this administration has gotten wrong, isn't it? Polls have been showing in increasing numbers that more and more people are disagreeing with the administration on things like social issues, the environment, and the economy, too. It's not just the war (though it of course plays a role, and perhaps a bigger one than it should).
-
What does the Sheriff of Guilford County have to do with them?
It works both ways though. I'm sure there's a bunch of good ol' boys are who with W to the bitter end and if the vote is going to be a litmus test on the Bush administration, well, dagnubbit they're going to vote Republican all the way.
(Which, by the way, is why Kerry lost in 2004. But that's a different post.)
The problem starts with the parties because the more uneducated the voters are, the more they benefit. They can turn elections that should rest on complex issues into revotes and litmus tests and whatnot and nothing continues to get done. -
because the truth on most of these issues lies somewhere between both parties. As for the sheriff, I don't know. I must be one of the uneducated voters because, having never had to participate in a sheriff vote, I didn't even realize sheriffs ran as a representative of a party at all! What does someone's political affiliation have to do with them being a good sheriff? Nothing. That shouldn't be a party issue, in my opinion, but like everything else in our country these days, it seems to have become one.
-
People would run on issues, not party tickets.
-
A-fucking-Men.
-
the daily show writers are posting throughout the day in the InDecider blog, it's great stuff.
check it out:
http://tinyurl.com/v46rc
looking forward to the show tonight, but not because of Rather... still, interesting that he'd do a comedy program -
Great... some trouble with voting machines, etc. Dammit, no matter who wins, we're gonna have 2 more years of hearing "they stole the election". Fucking politics.
-
that's the way the voters want it. Politics in this country has become about "teams", not necessarily about issues and whose right or wrong. Certainly the politicians are to blame for starting this trend, but now the media and thus the general populous, sees everything as Right vs. Left/Red vs. Blue instead of looking at the issues that matter to them.
In line today, a woman said to me "I don't know anything about most of these people." I politely responded that it was not a requirement to place a vote for every office and that doing so if uninformed about the decisions could end up having a detrimental effect to the country. She stared at me blankly then said, "I'm just gonna do straight-republican instead." -
Have you read Tocqueville's Democracy in America? Back in the early days, the public was a lot more involved with politics because local politics controlled pretty much everything. The federal government did very little. Nowadays it's reversed. Occasionally you'll get a hot-button issue on the school board, but for the most part, the big issues are being legislated at a national level.
Continuing that thought, since the representative:population ratio continues to decline dramatically, a member of congress can't possibly represent its constituents. Instead it represents the bureaucracy of PACs, lobbyists, and special interests that have grown up around Washington.
As a result, most Americans think their vote doesn't matter because they're not a relevant part of the structure. In many ways, their vote doesn't matter. Not just because of numbers, but because of the entrenchment of other interests on Capitol Hill.
Therefore, people have less of a voice on issues that effect them. The only way to solve the problem?
Vote ChrTh in 2012! -
And since I just moved to Los Angeles, I'm only educated on a few, and those are the ONLY ones I'm voting for.
-
down with his pennis. oreilly has dingleberrys bigger than stewart. factor that one potheads!
-
How could we allow the Harry "Go Vote" TB to become more popular than this one.
You people disgust me.
*snicker* -
I'm only one man.
-
has already been broken in by all dem pols & has been a slickwillyslave for years so at least the o man wont have much problm jamming his thing all up into stewarts spin zone. whos looking out for you bitch?!
-
from hitlery clitons left tit will save us all from the melting icecaps and the evil fatasshist walmart christians in the midwest that pose even bigger threat to world peace tahn terrorists. suk that big government prozak laced tit like a good baby slave and blame it all big oil as u bow your head toward mecca. pinko scum
-
is not one hisself.
-
Granted, there was no constructive debate. But at least there was debate. Now college kids, the younger generation, et al are getting what they think is news from you. Way to go. Way to fix the problem. Now YOU are now the problem. But it's okay. Because he's a libby. A libby that is 'middle ground' and only 'leans left'. A middle ground libby that is consulted by Dan Ra(th)er. You can't make this shit up!
-
The Daily Show is on a COMEDY network. If you get the two confused, that's your problem.
-
They make fun of politicians. Republicans control all three branches of government. What are they supposed to do? Did they make Foley jerk off with the page? Get off the cross, conservatives.
-
I think (well, I know) Jon Stewart is ... and what's happening is that he's having a harder time controlling his disdain/disgust/etc with things that benefit the Republicans. The Kerry botched joke comes to mind; he looked like he was going to have an aneurysm.
-
I think my prediction is turning out to be wrong. Ah, what the Hell do I know, anyway? I've voted for both Perot AND Nader...
-
"She ran away with it like a hobo with a sweet potato pie." I love you, Rather.
-
That English guy is all right. And Samantha Bee is pretty good. But everybody's deserted to THE OFFICE!
-
anyone that hates on TDS is just a bitter conservative with sand in their vagina...
-
i really wanted to see those red balloons. thanks for handing america over to the terrosists and the mexicans u godless perverts.
-
...who loves the Daily Show. You have to admit that Jon Stewart is pretty intellectually honest when you cut through all the humor.
Was the 2nd hour of the show last night just a repeat of the first hour? It still said "live" but he was having the same conversation with Dan Rather. WTF? -
that all the Congressman who appeared on Colbert's 'better know a district' won or kept their seats. That'll show Pelosi, that bitch! Maybe now she'll pay attention. Especially since she's ms. first female House speaker now. Which I fully support, even though she is a bitch. 'Congratulations, terrorists!'
-
Amazing how Fox News' framing of reality has taken root.
"Bias" does not mean "democratic" or "liberal", kids. Reality, as Stephen Colbert said, has a well-known liberal bias.
It's not biased to state bluntly that Bush is a liar, because he is. It's simply a fact. He's nuts, he's lying to himself and us. The Republicans have looted the treasury. Also real. Iraq was a faked up invasion. Real and more real.
So, to not "show his bias", as the CNN reporters do, Stewart has to put on a poker face and pretend that a thousand things that are true, aren't. He has to pretend that what Clinton did with a staffer somehow equals killing 600,000 innocent people, and construct his truthy reality bubble around the show accordingly?
Stewart is simply being intelligent, forthright, and a hell of a lot more polite than I'd be at this point. -
I was really disturbed to see MSNBC's coverage anchored by both Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. Matthews leans left but can be moderate. Olberman on the other hand is a real left-wing nut. Unless he was teamed up with Scarborough having him on was a mistake.
-
I'm not from america but since i am on a study break from my economics exams here goes:
1) Increases in wages is refective of a strengthening economy but if mismanaged will lead to a inflation and thus b an increase in interest rates, reducing houseing affordability.
2) The definition of unemployment is constantly changing. it is not apples to apples. these days the figures mostly only count those who applied for a job over the last 6 months, thus excluding the long term unemployed and the underemployed, but this has not always been the case. Under 5% is pretty good though, as most economists no longer belive full employement to be possible (lots of reasons).
3 In most countries the government's control over surpluses/deficits is limited in the short term. Most expenditure is non-descretionary, public service wages, the army, roads ect, but revenue fluctuates with the bussiness cycle. The govt does have a major medium term effect on bussiness cycle though, spending money will boost the economy. For example what ended the depression? answer: wwii. Maybe iraq, with it's increase in govt spending is artificially pushing your economy up.
4) Your economy is fucked. Just ask warren buffet. Your deficit is now at over one trillion dollars. It has more than doubled during this administration. Your govt has not been in surplus since before REAGAN. Warren buffets says this is like a rich family with a big farm selling parts of the farm to pay for their lifestyle. You pay interest on this. The lowest the deficit has been over that time is during clinton. It turns out the republicans are the big spenders. You will fix this problem or you will go into the shiter. Simple
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts