John Stewart on Fox News' response to Obama after one day of presidency (and more)
 

This is good. I always enjoy The Daily Show.

BillO: "I didn't like the line in the speech about 'we don't have to compromise our values to protect ourselves'. I think sometimes we do."
I don't feel safe. I strongly suggest we arrest BillO without charges and hold him until I feel safer. I need to protect myself!

Why not just gag him so that we don't have to listen to him blather on?

O'Really is constantly saying stuff that I believe incites crime and violence. Last Christmas season he ranted and ranted about some atheist or agnostic sign in Washington state. Sure enough someone up and stole the sign. He's also blaming one group or another for the problems of the US I have little doubt it's just a matter of time before some acts to harm another based on his blathering. If it hasn't already happened? I say for everyone safety we ship him to Gittmo. You know just until it's closed then we can figure if any state will take him. Maybe Iraq would like to have him for a while?

I am not at all surprised by the bitterness. I just hope that those who follow Rush can see the hypocrisy in his words.

Thanks for posting this, Baraka, I've been meaning to watch The Daily Show, especially since the inauguration.
Fox News is funny to watch, but incredibly depressing once you realize the millions that stare at it, breathing through their mouths and nodding stupidly.

How are Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh able to breathe? Seriously.

I enjoyed the line "Socialism has failed."

1) so has capitalism, apparently, or did you not notice what the economy is doing now.
2) he's not a socialist.
3) you guys had 30 years to do it your way and it failed. Give someone else a chance.

i hope that we are soon treated to the spectacle of these reactionary assholes on a raft floating further and further out into the sea of irrelevance. you'd think they'd already be out there somewhere, and we'd be waving at them maybe.

as it is: one funny thing is that the faux news business model has been rendered transparent--reactionary idiot infotainment all day every day---the interesting thing is that there was a time not long ago when that business model was of a piece with the broader ideological framework as a whole. so there's a side of me that hopes faux news continues blazing trails of irrelevance and finds itself losing viewers, losing advertisers, all the while becoming more and more obviously what it always has been.

These individuals, Republicans, are considered adults?

Golly Gee, Wally!

1) Technically, no. Had the market been able to self-adjust, the firms that are about to fall apart would have failed a long time ago, instead of being propped up by the government even though they were sickly and should have been forced to change their business practices due to market forces.

2) He may not be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, but he is a big proponent of quasi-socialist policies, and a goodly number of his more vocal supporters are socialists. In Obama's defense, he has become far more centrist as of late.

3) I believe the blame falls on both parties and cannot be shouldered by one single party. Many policies started under Clinton are coming to fruition now, just as much as Bush's and Reagan's policies are. In the end, we as a society are responsible for allowing this to occur because of our own greed and devil-may-care attitude toward the consequences.

4) Fox News is no worse than some of the programming on CNN and MSNBC, just on the opposite end of the continuum. In the end, they're all asshats and anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. Unless of course you lack the ability to think critically, then join the ranks of mouth-breathers.

The deregulation of the banking industry and the removal of restrictions as to how risky their investments were allowed to be (keep in mind they're investing your money, not theirs) combined with allowing them to grant mortgages to people who should never be granted mortgages, is what caused the banks to collapse. That froze the credit market, which is what is killing off the other businesses. Even as crappy as GM and Ford and Chrysler are, they'd not need a government hand out right now if the government had done it's job and kept the banking corporations in check. The market WAS allowed to "self adjust" and "self regulate" and, as any student of human nature should have recognized, greed took over and screwed everything up.

Additionally, if they can label Obama with the blanket and largely inaccurate label of socialism, then I label the current mess capitalism.


That's not much of a defense. I'm very tired of people acting like all socialism is bad. If you truly believe that, then I trust you pay someone for the private roads that you had constructed so that you can drive to work. . .

Socialism of the commons is not a bad thing - by which I mean everyone needs to use roads and it would be pretty silly if everyone had to make their own roads to get them where they want to go. Socialising the vehicle transportation infrastructure makes perfect sense, and it would be idiotic to try to do it any other way, yet the "oh my god socialism is BAD!" crowd never seems to manage to think of that.


On this we agree, but then Clinton is really Neo-Con Lite. Signing NAFTA and GAT screwed us over as much as many of the things Reagan and the Bush's did. The very idea that it's a good idea to encourage companies to outsource jobs to other countries is a corporatist viewpoint that is, frankly, an affront to the people of this country, and I would argue that it is anti-American.

Don't stop there. We're also responsible because no one wants to invest themselves in what's going on. There've been a lot of things that politicians have done over the decades which have been very obviously bad ideas. The no-evidence attack on Iraq, NAFTA, GAT, Star Wars, Iran Contra, the first attack on Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, and of course Clinton's getting away with not kililng bin Laden for his first terrorist attack on our soil. This latter is a particularly bitter example because the media (of which, yes, I am a part, though due to my location and situation at the time I had no chance of doing anything about) had the choice between hammering Clinton for not getting bin Laden for his first attempt to destroy the WTC, and hammering clinton for getting a blowjob. They picked the Monica scandal not because it was what the people needed to know, but because sex sells and they wanted a titillating story. Pathetic.



4) Fox News is no worse than some of the programming on CNN and MSNBC, just on the opposite end of the continuum. In the end, they're all asshats and anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. Unless of course you lack the ability to think critically, then join the ranks of mouth-breathers.[/QUOTE]

They're worse. Fox is the only one full of slackjawed idiots who are proclaiming things like Obama isn't the legitimate president because the oath of office got flubbed by the Chief Justice.

mostly what shakran said.

among the claims that float out from what's left of conservative-land, among the most worthless is that the entire american press is somehow part of a "liberal conspiracy" and that therefore their explicit mixing of rightwing talking points and infotainment more generally is hunky dory. none of that is true outside the blinkered little world of the right.

faux news is quite different from other networks. it's part of their business model to be an explicitly rightwing political network. remember roger ailes?
if capitalism were in fact rational, you'd expect to see fauz news scrambling to adjust that model--but no haps--they still present hannity et al as if they represented a rational viewpoint. so fine--it's just a question of time before they collapse then, murdoch money or not.

cnn and most of the other television "news" outlets support in a predictably servile manner whomever is in power. it's strange that the right has been persuaded that cnn is somehow anti-conservative when the fact is that the network is still chock-a-block with conservative relics--ever watch lou dobbs? the guy's a one-dimensional horse's ass, but he's still on in primetime. go figure.

For those who think all forms of socialism are bad haven't spent enough time in Canada (or enough time simply reading about us). I'm not sure if you've looked up here recently, but we aren't doing too shabby.

*Knocks on government-supported wood*

It seems like everyone is rubbing my face in my wish but lack of ability to move to Canada.

The government was still pumping money into many of these large corporations, had they not, I believe the problem would have been curbed before it could get out of hand. Either way, the point is moot now.



I never made a judgment call on socialism one way or the other. I simply said that Obama is a proponent of a handful of socialist policies and a good deal of his farther-left supporters are, in fact, dyed-in-the-wool socialists and communists. If you must know, I believe the government should only provide what it absolutely must (i.e. roads, mail, utilities, etc.) and that most things, including healthcare, should be left in the hands of private industry. My biggest problem is that the things that are left in the hands of private industry have large lobbies, so the laws are biased in favor of the corporation and not the consumer. The balance of power should be shifted more towards the middle. I'll save my views on the ethics of business for another time.

I'm glad we could find some common ground somewhere.

We agree on most of this, too. I'm still on the fence with the current Iraq situation, but the things I have bolded, were good ideas. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East and needed to be ousted from Kuwait. The region is too valuable to be left to utter chaos, and whatever your personal feelings on wars over resources, facing an oil shortage or oil embargo would have been a bad deal. Also, Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative) is not bad. It puts the balance of warfare in our favor, and in the end will help keep nukes from raining down on us. Whatever can be done to keep the nuclear sword in its sheath is a good thing. It's an excellent deterrent because if we can render any strategic attack on our soil moot, then imagine how demoralizing that is to countries like, say China, DPRK, and Iran.


I submit to you that the idiots spewing pure bunkum from their mouths on Fox News are no different than the millions of individuals who decried the Bush Administration, even after he was re-elected decisively in 2004, saying things like "He's not my President, I didn't vote for him." These kind of blind partisan politics do us no good. I hope that these kinds of these can be silenced on either side of the aisle. It would be nice to return to moderation and centrism in politics, and the ability to compromise for the greater good of the entire country. I'm hoping the Obama Administration can help heal this divide.
-----Added 25/1/2009 at 08 : 06 : 12-----
Having grown up in and around the television and movie industry, the thing you must understand is that no matter whether they present the real, unadulterated truth or not, they still maintain a fair percentage of the market share and therefore generate money. It's about entertainment, not news, and that goes for CNN, MSNBC, et al as well.

Also, you seem to have forgotten the fact that there were a large number of "objective" journalists and TV show hosts fawning over Obama. That sure sounds like they kept a decent balance between their political views doesn't it? Many were far too eager to wear their own political viewpoints on their sleeves during the election.

Also, you cannot deny that there is a venomous anti-conservative majority in Hollywood and most of the entertainment industry. I have seen and experienced it with my own eyes. In the end, both sides have their own horse's asses and whatever they spew forth should be taken with a grain of salt.

atreides: i understand pretty well what the commercial nature of the "free" american press results in. i expect i know more about it, and in more detail, that you do in fact. i say this in part because your comments above blur television journalism entirely into entertainment, and then proceeds to toss off some glib remarks about the "venomous anti-conservative majority" in hollywood---which is a non-sequitor.

so you know, i have no use for conservatism at all.

but even with that, the way the populist right has pitched the construction of an apparatus of sustained rightwing infotainment as if it balances some largely phantom "liberal bias" amongst news outlets in general is absurd. it's nothing more than a projection which functioned---when it did---to legitimate the construction of an entirely ideological conservative counter-reality, complete with media feedback loops, that enabled a kind of dissociative politics to legitimate itself. if you start from that position, you aren't talking about critical reading of the written press, or critical interpretation of visual media at all.

and it doesn't even represent all forms of conservatism. i know alot of folk who are quite conservative who are entirely capable of critical approaches to most information--but none of them have any use for this type of populist conservatism and it's pseudo-critical view of all forms of information except those which are pitched in a way that makes them feel better. which is what faux news, the washington times, etc. were set up to do for folk, seemingly, like yourself.

But you can't deny that it is set up to make money, like all journalist publications and productions.


But if you start at the position that CNN and MSNBC are largely slanted left, then Fox covers the opposite end of the spectrum, thus balancing the asshats on television.


I agree with you here. I for one don't watch the talking heads on either of the stations, and the only time I find myself watching Fox News is when they are running headline news and weather, and I find Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly repulsive. My own political views are surely not represented by them. I also agree that most of the editorial-type shows are largely a far-right masturbatory session, and am turned-off by them.

Moot only if one does not wish to learn from history so that one does not have to repeat it ;)





Of course you did.

And then you said "In his defense" he's more centrist now. You wouldn't feel the need to say that particular phrase if you thought it was OK for him to be farther left.

Yes, that's working wonderfully for us so far. Which explains why cancer patients are denied treatment because it's "elective surgery" or some other such bullshit excuse. The government's job is to work for We The People. That means that their actions should be biased toward what is good for us, not what is good for corporations. You haven't told me yet why you think health insurance is better in the hands of private industry. In fact, it's an automatic conflict of interest for health insurance to be in the hands of private industry, because private industry's goal is profit, not the preservation of human life and health. Therefor their automatic tendency is to try to avoid spending money whenever possible, which means their automatic tendency is to try to figure out how to get out of paying for your healthcare.



Star Wars was a stupid idea. It doesn't work. It's never worked. It did absolutely nothing for us.

Saddam was the only stabilizing force in the middle east. Saddam has never attacked us, has never even cared about attacking us, and in fact killed any terrorist he discovered. While the first gulf war wasn't as stupid of an idea as the second, it was still an issue of the US horning in where we have no business being. It's not our country, it's not our fight, and it's not our place to go kill Iraqis.


Except that we at least had something to decry. . .


Since when is 50.7% a decisive win? Especially in an election where the guy who makes the voting machines promises to deliver Ohio for Bush, and then keeps that promise.


Who?

I guess I don't really care who some actor votes for, and truly don't care what the percentage of movie actors who vote one way or another are. Journalists are another matter. I do not say that journalists can't have opinions - - I think it's idiotic that people think we don't. I do, however, say that they have a duty to the truth. Chris Wallace claiming that Obama isn't president because of a flubbed word in the oath of office is not upholding that duty, because constitutionally, he was President 4 minutes before he took the oath.

*cough* So, uh, yeah.... I enjoyed the video. Thanks for posting :)


*exits, stage left*

It's just too easy to make fun of the conservatwats..... But it's still funny

Is that water you are carrying pretty heavy?

I really wonder if all those people yelling "socialist" really know what the term means.

I watch CNN pretty much exclusively for my news and I don't see a "strong left slant" at all. Campbell Brown and Anderson Cooper both have been very critical of Obama in his first week, and both have panels of talking heads from both sides of the aisle.

After debating with proud neoliberals, I'm of the opinion that to some people "socialist" means "anything other than a completely free market". The thinking seems to be that trickle down isn't theory, it's doctrine, and anything that challenges that doctrine is blasphemy. Socialism to them means blasphemy.

On The Colbert Report, after the flubbed ceromony, Stephen claimed that the constitution says that who ever was on TV at noon will be the President. Then they view the video, and it's a close up of Yo-yo Ma. And so all hail President Ma and his vice president, his cello :)

Not likely. These are some of the same people who think socialism and communism are synonymous, and that socialism can only operate in the absence or dismantling of capitalism.

also that helping anyone but themselves is bad

also: they enjoy the fruits of socialists' labour without realizing it.

You, sir, are a blasphemer!

You, sir, are too kind! :thumbsup:

That's a great graphic, Will, and really puts things in perspective.