John Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity

[Vekseid]

October 30th, Washington D.C. Mall. Videos can be gleaned from the Daily Show and Colbert Nation sites:

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/

Colbert, of course, has a response:

http://www.keepfearalive.com/

If I could get my vehicle repaired in time I'd be there with a giant sign.

Brilliant timing on Stewart's part, for certain.

[HockeyGod]

If it wasn't so last minute, we could have done some kind of carpool. Unfortunately I've got work up the ying yang on the 30th and 31st  :-(

[Ryven]

I might be going.  It's only a few hours away for me.

[Wolfy]

T_T..I want to go....but alas, it's so far away...

[Vekseid]

If it wasn't so last minute, we could have done some kind of carpool. Unfortunately I've got work up the ying yang on the 30th and 31st  :-(

That does get me a bit. This would have been far more effectively announced just after Beck's rally - more people would have been able to schedule and the announcement wouldn't be nearly as forced. I imagine Viacom may have sat on its thumbs on the idea, though, so I wouldn't outright blame Stewart... but still : /

[Wolfy]

Well, he has been planning this announcement for a week or so now...people had probably already guessed what it was, but just didn't know the date and time.

People have already been wanting Colbert to do a counter-rally to Beck's...even going so far as to release doves and things. lol

[Paradox]

The girlfriend and I are going since it's only a few hours away, and her brother lives outside of D.C., so we can stay with him for the night.

[ShadesofGrey]

Yeah, I'm on the wrong coast to go to it, but it sounds brilliant. Have a friend from NYC that's going, so she can have enough fun for us both I hope.

I would love to see Glenn Beck and Jon debate. Wouldn't that just be awesome? ;D

[Vekseid]

People like Glenn Beck have triggers, I'd be surprised if Glenn wasn't aware of that and the risk he'd be taking by having someone like John Stewart tear into him.

[itsbeenfun2000]

glenn beck would never debate someone unless he had control of the situation

[Revolverman]

I woudn't have them in the same room unless Rob Riggle was there to watch Stewart's back.

[Vekseid]

That would be fair, apparently Glenn Beck has a personal bodyguard too.

[Wolfy]

Well, Glenn already commented that Colbert and Stewart are going to "Activate the Youth" as if they have some kind of WMD. O_o

[Two Faced]

I'll be going, if I can manage. It's only an hour and a half away on a bad traffic day. I'm not entirely sure what to expect... but it should prove interesting. (Colbert seems to be focusing on it a lot more then Stewart on his show, too. But Colbert always was more focused on entertainment.)

[Vekseid]

Well, Glenn already commented that Colbert and Stewart are going to "Activate the Youth" as if they have some kind of WMD. O_o

It's a seven point swing if his demographic is activated. To republicans, that is a nightmare.

[Revolverman]

Well, Glenn already commented that Colbert and Stewart are going to "Activate the Youth" as if they have some kind of WMD. O_o

You know Glenn has lost it when he is stealing plot points from AMERICAN DAD.

[TheVillain]

I'm thinking of going myself actually. I live in Missouri but I'm unemployed so fuck it, why not?

[Oniya]

Well, Glenn already commented that Colbert and Stewart are going to "Activate the Youth" as if they have some kind of WMD. O_o

You mean 'The Youth' isn't a WMD?  [/curmudgeon]  ;D

[Wolfy]

You mean 'The Youth' isn't a WMD?  [/curmudgeon]  ;D

No..but they sure make a mess like one. *Rimshot*

[itsbeenfun2000]

I think stewart and colberts dualing rallies will do wonders for people who need to see what beck is doing to this country

[Wolfy]

It's not just Beck. The entirety of Fox news can be blamed as well. >_>

[TheVillain]

Well, I give Shep a pass personally. He does drink from the company kool-aid, but not nearly as much. When you see his eyes when he's obviously thinking "What the fuck is wrong with you people" it's a thing of beauty.

[Wolfy]

I love how Fox News Bad mouths the main funder for the Ground Zero Mosque..yet never say his full name, nor show his picture. Why? Because he owns 2/3rds(or is at least one of the primary shareholders) of Newscorp, the company that owns..FOX NEWS.

So. ****ing. Hilarious to see them try and dance around it.

[Ignaddio]

I plan on showing up, as Washington DC is practically just a trip down the interstate for me.

Also, some people who can't make it are planning satellite rallies in their areas.

Iirc, reddit's community had a large part in motivating Stephen Colbert to the task.

[Wolfy]

Teehee....the One thing that the people of Congress laughed at at Colbert's hearing(Paraphasing):

"I trust that after hearing me speak, members of congress, that you will continue to work towards the people's best interests, as you always do."


....and they laughed at that. o3o

...(Though I probably got the quote wrong)

[Wolfy]

Lol...Obama actually mentioned the Rally to Restore Sanity. :D He knows!

[Vekseid]

Of course he does. He's been on Stewart's show.

The One Nation Working Together march is also tomorrow.

[zoarster]

I'm debating going to this... but having attempted the Obama inauguration only to find out that (even though I had a ticket) there was no space and having to run back on the Metro to a bar to watch the actual ceremony, I'm leary of crowds on the Mall...

[TheVillain]

Go. Had real life attack me, now I'm too broke to go.

[Wolfy]

it's now "The Rally to Restore Sanity and/Or Fear."

And it's going to be live in 2 hours. :D Anyone else going to be watching?

[TheVillain]

Might be, I'm kind of broke and sad. ;P

[Wolfy]

Might be, I'm kind of broke and sad. ;P

:P It's going to be on Comedy Central..so..you can be there in spirit! xD

[Aiden]

I'm watching it now

[Wolfy]

I'm watching it now

First Cat Stevens, then Ozzy, then the Ojays....God I wish I could be there live! D:

[Aiden]

I'm guesing it started at 10am pst?

I just caught ozzy finishing up, just woke up from a med induced coma.

[Wolfy]

I'm guesing it started at 10am pst?

I just caught ozzy finishing up, just woke up from a med induced coma.

It started at 11 for me..so I guess. O-o...*shrugs* I'm in central time, soo...

[TheVillain]

Estimate Size: 150,000 - 215,000. Good show moderates!

[Vekseid]

It seems the signs were funnier and more poignant than Stewart.

One of my favorites.

[Synecdoche17]

That there is an awesome sign, alright!

[Noelle]

[Oniya]

Oh - Beck had a competing rally?  *honestly hadn't heard*

[Noelle]

Glenn Beck had the original rally that this one parodied. He did a Rally to Restore Honor, which was mostly just right-wing blah blah from everyone's favorite fringe idiot. In response, Stewart and Colbert got together and did a joint rally to call for moderate Americans.

[TheVillain]

End of August. He called it a "Rally to Restore Honor".

Basically it was a rally of Christian Conservatives pretending to be / who thought they were Libertarians.

[Oniya]

Ah - so they weren't simultaneous.  *is enlightened*

[dominomask]

So me and my sister took the baby and tried to get into the city for the rally.  We didn't make it, but it was a good trip all the same.

Just going out to the metro, and waiting over an hour to try and get on the train, and finally deciding to call it a miss and go home because even the trains going the OTHER direction full of people trying to go to the first station on the line and get on an empty train were becoming as crammed as the trains heading toward the mall...honestly, it was a lot of fun.  Everyone was in a good mood, everyone seemed really excited to be around other people who were tired of the shrilling and sensationalism.  It can feel so lonely to try and be reasonable when it seems like everyone around you is addicted to falsely heightened contention and conversational "winning", of ideals turned into sports teams.

And there were so many of us that easily a few thousand people turned away at the metro station like we did, and the same thing was happening at a few dozen metro stations around the district...I'm still sort of in shock from the concrete realization of just how not-alone I am in wanting real conversations to be more commonplace.

;D ;D ;D

[Laughing Man]

I was there. Got a decent space in the crowd, too. I was one of five Waldos (the one without the pom-pom on his hat, lack of planning FTL XD)

I love Jon Stewart. He's the only figure in the political arena that I have complete and legitimate respect for; he's the only one IMO who's close enough to the center to not see red (or blue, as it were) when he talks. It was one hell of an event. If you weren't there or didn't catch it on the TV, you can hear his ending speech here, which I think is the best part of the entire thing. It's short but amazing.

This is what America needs. Jon Stewart has the right idea.

Also, Stephen Colbert was hilarious. ^^

[Lyell]

This just in, moderates outnumber radicals! Story at 11.

If you weren't expecting numbers like that I really am at a loss for words.

Also, John's speech was beautiful.

[Tree]

I'm wondering if a comedian is the best person to restore the sanity

[TheVillain]

When the rest of the mainstream media is a fucking joke as well, why not?

[Avis habilis]

Comes a time when the court jester is the only one left who can speak the truth.

[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...

[Lyell]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that zone of the world facing a debt crisis?

[Trieste]

Uh, is there a part of the world that's not facing a debt crisis right now?

[Lyell]

Point, taken. Some are markedly worse off than others though.

[Trieste]

Indeed. Globalization allows for some pretty amazing things, but man does it suck when things go shitty.

[Serephino]

All I know is I'm getting really sick of the attack ads.  All they do is make me want to go to my polling place and write in Daffy Duck for every office.  Each candidate claims they are going to change things (jumping on the change bandwagon to help themselves I think), but none of them is doing anything different.

I hardly know where any of them stand on anything because each and every add is about how this candidate did this and that, and if elected would do blah blah blah, which will kill jobs, so I shouldn't vote for him.  I'm also quite sure at least half of it are either lies, or things blown way out of proportion.

I wonder what would happen if nobody voted.  It probably wouldn't be possible, but still, it would make a statement.     

[Wolfy]

Ah - so they weren't simultaneous.  *is enlightened*

It looks to me like Stewart and Colbert could have taken Glenns rally, though.


And honestly..how many of those people at Beck's rally do you think were actually just there to watch him be an idiot? If the two Rallies had been on the same day, I doubt Glenn would have had even half the number of people that were there.

[Wolfy]

"Do you want to stop sharia law? Support Separation of Church and State"

Another sign from the Rally.

^-^

[TheVillain]

It looks to me like Stewart and Colbert could have taken Glenns rally, though.


And honestly..how many of those people at Beck's rally do you think were actually just there to watch him be an idiot? If the two Rallies had been on the same day, I doubt Glenn would have had even half the number of people that were there.

Makes me wonder how many people were there because it was the anniversary of MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech and never even heard of or hated Beck, but got counted anyway.

[dominomask]

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.

The short version is that there is a specific kind of organization, a 501 c 4, that must be chartered and operated for the improvement of the "public good".  They get tax exempt status, and, more recently, are exempted from needing to disclose their sources of revenue.  The justification of this (which I find a little meh) would be that it would allow "whistle blowers" to get a message out for the public good without fear of repercussions. 

This means that if you just run attack ads meant to "enlighten the public" about how a certain politician or political party or proposed measure is the work of the devil, that's fine, but if you advocate for a specific candidate, you're clearly operating for the benefit of an individual rather than the public which doesn't qualify for the tax-exempt/non-disclosure status.

Companies that know that they can pour donations into a crepe-paper "organization" dedicated to making attack ads to torpedo candidates and measures that are pro-worker or pro-regulation without worrying about the public knowing about their leanings, without worrying about potential boycotts and the like, are apparently happy to do so.

The conservatives have gone really really berzerk with this practice this election, but in fairness, the liberals did it first (and got in trouble, and stopped).

[Oniya]

Berserk is right, and I'm seeing it on both sides of the fence.  It's at the point where I don't know where any of the candidates stand on any of the pertinent issues, and I may end up picking whoever had the most positive ads (I did see a few).