John Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity

[Oniya]

*nods at Avis*  Historically, the court jester was the only one that could speak the truth and get away with it.  In Shakespeare, the character of the Fool is usually the only one that has a clue of what's going on.

[Callie Del Noire]

I liked what he said about the cable news media was doing nothing to help and simply polarizing the problem. I also liked that he said that compromise was dead in Washington and that it needed to come back.

[Oniya]

I liked what he said about the cable news media was doing nothing to help and simply polarizing the problem.

On this aspect - here in Ohio, I think I've seen one campaign ad that wasn't 'Candidate A is a lying, cheating, scum-sucking sonovabitch!'  This is counting both sides, especially since very few of the ads even mention which candidate they support.  Is anyone else seeing a predominantly negative campaign season?

[TheVillain]

A record breaking one at that. There's more money being spent on this midterm then in the 2008 elections, and GOP candidates are setting records for campaign spending.

[Noelle]

That's about what it is every campaign season, but it's especially potent this season probably because having the country in a weakened (but improving! Not that they're recognizing that) state makes it easier to point fingers, and everybody likes to have one solid, prominent figure to blame. Republicans are especially good at being assholes and the Democrats just tend to roll over and die when it counts, so you can imagine that when the Democrats are in power and the Republicans are looking to shoulder their way back in despite the fact that they're completely ignoring that our country was in trouble before Obama even made office and their policies have failed just as much as the Democrats, smear campaigns start to crop up.

This really reminds me of a speech that all politicians need to hear.

Dicks, Pussies and Assholes

[dominomask]

I liked what he said about the cable news media was doing nothing to help and simply polarizing the problem. I also liked that he said that compromise was dead in Washington and that it needed to come back.

I'm kinda amused by the idea of compromise zombies....:)

[dominomask]

This really reminds me of a speech that all politicians need to hear.
(dicks, pussies, assholes)

I love that speech. 
Trey Parker and Matt Stone remind me of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, the Restoration-era poet and satirist (played by Johnny Depp in a movie, I believe).  If you ever get a chance to read his stuff I recommend it.  In an era where wit was king and the nobility were working very hard at pretending like they had everything well in hand, he was an absolute screw-head in the best possible sense.

John Stewart is a bit more like Pope.  Except not Catholic.  Or a hunchback.:)

[Lyell]

so you can imagine that when the Democrats are in power and the Republicans are looking to shoulder their way back in despite the fact that they're completely ignoring that our country was in trouble before Obama even made office and their policies have failed just as much as the Democrats,[/url]

Not to put to fine a point on anything but our country has been in a decline since 1969 when the government started replacing the private sector as the employment giant. Overall job growth has been shakey at best since 1973, but has threatened to disappear entirely since 2000. Payroll growth has declined in every decade since the 1960s. Capacity utilization, the percentage use of the country's manufacturing base, was 90% in 1967, but it has declined steadily, and has never come close to 90% again since 1973. Today it stands at less than 70%. As decline set in, everyone(<- I use that term loosely) began relying on debt. Pre 1975 figures give a rough 70% of disposable income as the norm. 2000 breached the 100% mark and five years later the 1975 figures were doubled to 140%. As real income fell, and more and more debt was used to make up the difference, the personal savings rate declined so much that it turned negative in 2005 right at the peak of the real estate bubble. Even with all of the debt consumers piled up over the last 40 years to maintain their spending, the rate of change of retail sales peaked way back in 1973, and in recent years hasn't come close to the 16% rate recorded at that time. In 2008, retail sales collapsed to the highest negative rate of change in the last 60 years. (Bureau of labor statistics, US census bureau, federal reserve)

What's my point in all this? It takes more than eight, ten, fifteen years to kill a nations economy, and one person can't do it alone. I don't blame Bush, I don't blame Clinton and I don't blame Obama. I blame the american people. Maybe WE(<-again, using the term loosely) should stop pointing the finger.

[Trieste]

If you're going to put forth things like that as anything other than personal opinion, you do need to provide sources for the numbers, etc. Until and unless that happens, keep in mind that the above is only personal opinion.

[Lyell]

(Bureau of labor statistics, US census bureau, federal reserve)

Oh I haven't forgotten how "source or fail" happy people are here.

US census bureau

Neat little charts that compile data from previous years.

More charts with compiled data.

Where the Labor statistics were found.

[Trieste]

A lack of sources does not make your opinion less valid as an opinion; it simply means that your opinion does not have the weight of fact unless you can verify it as fact. Please make sure you understand the difference.

[Lyell]

I'm not getting into another snit with you over forum etiquette. Let me just be the first to apologize and admit that I misinterpreted your previous message as having a hostile overtone.

[Noelle]

Lyell, that was kind of my point ;P This has been a long-building shitstorm that didn't just happen one day when nobody was looking. I refer to the respective parties the way I do because we have a Democrat in power presently taking the blame when both parties have had their fair share of fuckups.

[Lyell]

That's actually what I'm getting at. People are blaming the president (either this or the last one) and the administration (again, take your pick). WE put them there! We put all of them there, the congressmen, the white house, the supreme court, it's all our fault. Consent of the goverened and all that.

[Vekseid]

There's a democratic ad talking about how republicans were in power during every major banking crisis since 1900. This is quite true, if you go by presidency. It doesn't exonerate the democrat's complicity in financial malregulation.

I tend not to take the 'blame the people' route, however. I've been running this place long enough to know that people share responsibility in the behavior they engender in others, and if you go around openly deceiving and manipulating people, yes, their mess is your fault.

On this aspect - here in Ohio, I think I've seen one campaign ad that wasn't 'Candidate A is a lying, cheating, scum-sucking sonovabitch!'  This is counting both sides, especially since very few of the ads even mention which candidate they support.  Is anyone else seeing a predominantly negative campaign season?

With the Citizens United decision, attack ads are basically all we are going to see until the Constitution is amended or the corrupt justices who made the ruling are tossed out on their asses. Possibly both. Only funding for supporting ads is limited, now.

[mystictiger]

Taken from:

More charts with compiled data.

In this case, there are two reasons. Socialism has corrupted the character of the American people. It has changed us from self-reliant and independent to dependent and helpless.

Like... wow. Granted, my grasp of American history isn't great, but I'd hate to see what happened if America experienced 'real' Socialism.

[TheVillain]

I giggled, frankly. As 4chan would say, "U mad, conservafag? Yeh, he mad."

[Trieste]

Taken from:

Like... wow. Granted, my grasp of American history isn't great, but I'd hate to see what happened if America experienced 'real' Socialism.

Depending on your definition of 'real' Socialism, I'm sure people wouldn't know what to do. Everyone would have enough to eat, a bed to sleep in, a roof over their heads. Certain divisive radio hosts would lose their jobs because people wouldn't be angry and hungry anymore...

Hm... :)

I giggled, frankly. As 4chan would say, "U mad, conservafag? Yeh, he mad."

We're not using 'fag' as a derogatory term, are we? :)

[TheVillain]

Derogatory, yes. Toward homosexuals, no. 4chan is leading the effort to separate the two connotations. Now if you follow an idea or concept to the point it just makes you stupid and annoying you're some variety of fag. A conservative ideologue becomes a conservafag, a liberal ideologue becomes a libfag, a rabid environmentalist becomes an envirofag, et cetera.

It's fascinating to watch the connotations shift around.

[Trieste]

This is not 4chan, and that's not really an acceptable use of 'fag' here - for future reference.

With the Citizens United decision, attack ads are basically all we are going to see until the Constitution is amended or the corrupt justices who made the ruling are tossed out on their asses. Possibly both. Only funding for supporting ads is limited, now.

As a side note, this is why I don't miss having a television. Attack ads just make me angry.

[TheVillain]

Fair enough.

[Oniya]

With the Citizens United decision, attack ads are basically all we are going to see until the Constitution is amended or the corrupt justices who made the ruling are tossed out on their asses. Possibly both. Only funding for supporting ads is limited, now.

I did a little reading, but got bogged down in the legalese.  I couldn't quite make out why attack ads are 'okay' under this ruling, and supporting ads are limited.

[Lyell]

Depending on your definition of 'real' Socialism, I'm sure people wouldn't know what to do. Everyone would have enough to eat, a bed to sleep in, a roof over their heads. Certain divisive radio hosts would lose their jobs because people wouldn't be angry and hungry anymore...

No one would have to compete, nobody would strive to get ahead, nobody would stand out for their gifts or technological advancements. Highly skilled labor tends to flee from such circumstances. The term brain drain comes to mind.

[mystictiger]

No one would have to compete, nobody would strive to get ahead, nobody would stand out for their gifts or technological advancements. Highly skilled labor tends to flee from such circumstances. The term brain drain comes to mind.

Ah yes. The backwards and medieval nordic countries spring to mind, and the pathetic and anaemic economies of countries like Germany and France with all their collective and socialised endeavours! It's also abundantly clear that no socialist country could ever amount to a superpower or develop nuclear weapons! And the idea that a socialist country could ever have an economic growth worth a damn is laughable.

[zoarster]

I did a little reading, but got bogged down in the legalese.  I couldn't quite make out why attack ads are 'okay' under this ruling, and supporting ads are limited.

(CAVEAT: I am not a lawyer) Basically your right to speak for a candidate, especially donating money to him or her, is restricted under federal campaign laws because it's considered participation in their campaign. On the other hand, your right to speak against a candidate is protected because you're not necessarily participating in the opposition's campaign. It's very weird...