logo Sign In

Steven Colbert Running for President!! — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: PaulisDead2221
Originally posted by: ferris209
If they are innocent then they would not be put to death. Simple.


musn't....go...off...topic logical fallacy...is so egregiously assumed...but either way...can't stand....fact that...ferris...should have spelled it..."they're" ...


Man, you get that bent out of shape about somebody not using a contraction? What is wrong if Ferris used "they are" instead of "they're"? You are like opposite of most English teachers I know, most of them complain when people DO use contrations. This is a first. This is why the English language is doomed. Damn internet.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Does it really matter if you use a contraction or not in a forum? Aren't you not supposed use them in a formal setting?
Author
Time
Post link
Every political solution being offered today is such a joke anyways, why not vote for Colbert?

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
That is kind of how I feel.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Every political solution being offered today is such a joke anyways, why not vote for Colbert?


Really? All of them? Everything from Ron Paul's "If it's not in the Constitution, we shouldn't be doing it" to the other candidates "We have to finish the job"? Or were you just referring to the Democrat solutions?

Personally, I don't think we need a health care solution other than having less government intervention, which the Republican candidates seem to agree on. Most of them, afaik, want to leave it up to the States, which is where it should be.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
The states are doing a shitty job with health care too. My "red" state restricts what policies you can buy based on geography. If I want better health care I need to move. Even five miles north into a different county would open up better options for me. And the more and more health care saps out of my self-employed pocket (already past $10k this year and still bleeding), the more moving looks like a viable option.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Really? All of them? Everything from Ron Paul's "If it's not in the Constitution, we shouldn't be doing it" to the other candidates "We have to finish the job"? Or were you just referring to the Democrat solutions?


Changing the government so that it stays the hell out of things is always a good idea, but apart from Ron Paul I don't really see a candidate truly advocating that. The lack of government action is not a solution though, that's just passing responsibility back to the people who should have it.

Absolute crap solutions like expanding socialized health care, where the government decides what kinds of health-care services you can get, are seriously being considered by around half the population of this country. Another issue is how Democrats want to cover the landscape of our country with ugly wind turbines (and having the government subsidize ethanol is a big republican issue). It's all so pathetically stupid that I often want nothing to do with any of it.

The only problem is in the area of legitimate government action. Issues like having a strong national defense, being tough on criminals, standing up for our common social values, and having judges that uphold our laws (as apposed to judges that think our laws should mean whatever they feel it should at any moment) are too important to leave in the hands of a boob like Colbert. (Though I have a slight suspicion that he'd be better than Hillary.) Oh well.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Really? All of them? Everything from Ron Paul's "If it's not in the Constitution, we shouldn't be doing it" to the other candidates "We have to finish the job"? Or were you just referring to the Democrat solutions?

Changing the government so that it stays the hell out of things is always a good idea, but apart from Ron Paul I don't really see a candidate truly advocating that. The lack of government action is not a solution though, that's just passing responsibility back to the people who should have it.

And what is the problem with that? Many people choose not to have health care because they view it as an unneeded expense. If you're someone, like me, who only gets sick once a year (I mean need to go to the doctor sick), then government mandated health care is the worst thing that can happen. I might spend $20 (copay + prescription) on myself in an entire year. If I were single and didn't drive, I might think twice about even wanting health care since it would serve practically no purpose. The responsibility needs to lie with the States by giving the People multiple options for what private health care they want. We don't need any government run system, period. If you are to stupid to take care of yourself and/or your family, then you're going to have to deal with the consequences. Things don't always go the way you expect, so being prepared for the unexpected is part of that.

Do people buy car insurance thinking they're going to go out and hit another car right away? Of course not. Do they get homeowners insurance expecting something to break? Of course not. They do it because bad things happen. No one wants to get hit by someone else, but we do it because the out of pocket expense of having to pay the damages yourself are a lot higher. That's true with everything from car insurance to life insurance.

Originally posted by: Tiptup
Absolute crap solutions like expanding socialized health care, where the government decides what kinds of health-care services you can get, are seriously being considered by around half the population of this country.


Right. The other half are Republicans who don't want that.

Originally posted by: Tiptup
The only problem is in the area of legitimate government action. Issues like having a strong national defense, being tough on criminals, standing up for our common social values, and having judges that uphold our laws (as apposed to judges that think our laws should mean whatever they feel it should at any moment) are too important to leave in the hands of a boob like Colbert. (Though I have a slight suspicion that he'd be better than Hillary.) Oh well.


Agreed.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: Tiptup
The lack of government action is not a solution though, that's just passing responsibility back to the people who should have it.


And what is the problem with that?


Nothing except for the fact that it is more difficult for a politician to argue for. He (or she) has to talk about the positives of private responsibility and freedom, and those virtues don't give people the warm mushy feelings they enjoy. Leading poor people to take good private actions as apposed to encouraging bad private actions (by merely promising that we'll throw money at every irresponsible person that comes along) often seems like a losing battle.


[Edit: fixed loosing to losing.]

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
For the record, Colbert is a re-affirmed Catholic who teaches Sunday School at his church in Jersey. So while his tongue may be firmly planted in his cheek when he spoofs these neocon talking heads like O'Reilly, he's not doing it to prop up the notions of the Godless Hollywood Elite but rather to bust on the whole cult of personality that is ruining the television news media.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
For the record, Colbert is a re-affirmed Catholic who teaches Sunday School at his church in Jersey. So while his tongue may be firmly planted in his cheek when he spoofs these neocon talking heads like O'Reilly, he's not doing it to prop up the notions of the Godless Hollywood Elite but rather to bust on the whole cult of personality that is ruining the television news media.


Then he's doing a poor job of it.

Maybe instead of making fun of the media and some conservatives, he should get a real television program and stop being funny about it. We both know that his core audience thinks he's simply making fun of all those guys and they assume that everything he does is based in fact. That's why you get people that say they can't stand O'Reilly, even though they've never listened to him or watched him. I've heard plenty of people, when you actually start asking them serious questions, that come up with the same answers that O'Reilly does. The sad fact is that those people are watching Colbert instead and assuming that that's exactly what O'Reilly does and thinks when it's really the exact opposite.

If he wants to make fun, and have it not taken seriously at all, maybe he should get a show like the Soup. If he wants to be taken seriously, maybe he should start taking things seriously. It's a lot easier to bust on everyone else though.

So maybe Colbert does do it to bust on the media, like how Jon Stewart does the same thing. The problem is that their core audience doesn't see it that way.

It would be different if the younger generation didn't get their main news source from The Daily Show and The Colbert report. If they watched those shows for what they are, which is strictly comedy, and nothing more, then there probably wouldn't be a problem.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
I don't know. Maybe it's because I don't like O'Reilly, but I find Colbert's routine rather funny myself. O'Reilly's a jackass. And then he tried to title himself our cultural warrior. Uhg.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I don't know. Maybe it's because I don't like O'Reilly, but I find Colbert's routine rather funny myself. O'Reilly's a jackass. And then he tried to title himself our cultural warrior. Uhg.


Is their even a culture war?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Is their even a culture war?


I'd say yes, but not in the way that Bill O'Reilly would define it methinks.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Is their even a culture war?


I'd say yes, but not in the way that Bill O'Reilly would define it methinks.


Like how?
Author
Time
Post link
I like O'Rielly, he makes tons of sense.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ferris209
I like O'Rielly, he makes tons of sense.


Shut up.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Is their even a culture war?

I'd say yes, but not in the way that Bill O'Reilly would define it methinks.

Like how?


Well, in a sense, culture "wars" go on all the time and in every society throughout our planet and throughout history. There are always different practices and different ideas all battling for dominance. While these types of concerns have often lead to real wars between societies, you can't really say that sort of thing is happening right now with the Untied States. (Though perhaps having millions upon millions of illegal immigrants pour into our culture, from a heavily clashing culture, could be considered a cultural act of war on this level.) On the small scale, however, I believe we can say that there are many incompatible philosophies and truths desperately trying to win over our hearts and minds. This is a war of sorts with many different warriors.

Bill O'Reilly is not someone I generally disagree with. My problem is more with his attitude and his approach to the truth. He likes to say how he's free of "spin," but all I ever see him doing is incessantly spinning every issue to make himself look so incredibly smart and so incredibly sensible. Part of that is obviously a joke on his part, but most of it actually isn't and I honestly don't find him all that genuinely smart or sensible. That's why I call him a jackass. Simply watch him for a while and you'll see how on every issue, no matter how clear cut, he'll go way out of his way to try finding some sort of middle ground where he can call both sides of an issue extreme or incorrect and make himself seem above the "spin" of it all, and it bugs the hell out of me. He thinks that everyone should want to do what he says because his common sense is so damn balanced and intelligent. If anyone dares question him, then you'll see him get truly worked up. Well, I for one don't buy that bullshit of his and would prefer to get my commentary from an authentic mind.

All of that is why I believe O'Reilly deserves to be made fun of. That said, however, it is sad that our society takes humorous falsehoods to be gospel truth (as lordjedi pointed out). I don't necessarily blame Colbert for that however (and I certainly don't think his show is a bad thing), I mostly blame our society for being at a point where it makes stupid leaps of judgment when it obviously should not.


For me, I generally see two culture wars going on in the English-speaking world that are of top priority for us to handle. The first is between people who believe that the truth is something which should be struggled for with old-testament-style zeal and people who think that we should moderate and even attack our ability to pursue the truth. The second is between people who believe that private property and liberty are sacred and people who believe those same qualities should regularly be negotiated away for the sake of comfort and peace. I firmly believe that both of these cultural problems stem from an improper view of and approach to God in the English speaking world (but that's a complicated can of worms I'm not going to even try detailing at the moment).

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I don't know. Maybe it's because I don't like O'Reilly, but I find Colbert's routine rather funny myself. O'Reilly's a jackass. And then he tried to title himself our cultural warrior. Uhg.


Is their even a culture war?


GOD DAMMIT SEAN WOOKIE!!! Sorry but it's the same word I had to say something again!

Spaced Out - A Stoner Odyssey (five minute sneak peek)

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: PaulisDead2221
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I don't know. Maybe it's because I don't like O'Reilly, but I find Colbert's routine rather funny myself. O'Reilly's a jackass. And then he tried to title himself our cultural warrior. Uhg.


Is their even a culture war?


GOD DAMMIT SEAN WOOKIE!!! Sorry but it's the same word I had to say something again!


Dude, you're going to have to give up or just stop using the Internet. It's a losing battle. Trying to correct everyone's spelling and grammar mistakes is only going to make you go insane.

Back OT. I watch O'Reilly just about everyday. I've honestly only seen him try to "spin" a couple of things in a different light. Most of the time, he asks yes or no questions about hot bed political issues and gets really long answers from the person he's interviewing. Case in point, he asked one of the people from a group that protects illegal immigrants if she thought it was ok for people to cross our borders illegally. She kept answering that all people are protected by the 4th amendment. This all had something to do with a household of illegal immigrants that the government busted into and essentially hauled people off to be deported. So basically, she wouldn't answer the question. From her answer, I gather that her opinion is that once you cross the border, illegally or not, you're protected by the 4th amendment, which is bullshit.

The only other time I've seen him "spin" an issue is when a house full of possible illegals caught fire and some children died. It was in New York and they basically have a local ordinance that says the cops can't do anything to investigate possible illegals. It was essentially a case where the house was totally overcrowded beyond what local zoning laws allow, but they were looking the other way because New York is a sanctuary city.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Is their even a culture war?

I'd say yes, but not in the way that Bill O'Reilly would define it methinks.

Like how?


Well, in a sense, culture "wars" go on all the time and in every society throughout our planet and throughout history. There are always different practices and different ideas all battling for dominance. While these types of concerns have often lead to real wars between societies, you can't really say that sort of thing is happening right now with the Untied States. (Though perhaps having millions upon millions of illegal immigrants pour into our culture, from a heavily clashing culture, could be considered a cultural act of war on this level.) On the small scale, however, I believe we can say that there are many incompatible philosophies and truths desperately trying to win over our hearts and minds. This is a war of sorts with many different warriors.

Bill O'Reilly is not someone I generally disagree with. My problem is more with his attitude and his approach to the truth. He likes to say how he's free of "spin," but all I ever see him doing is incessantly spinning every issue to make himself look so incredibly smart and so incredibly sensible. Part of that is obviously a joke on his part, but most of it actually isn't and I honestly don't find him all that genuinely smart or sensible. That's why I call him a jackass. Simply watch him for a while and you'll see how on every issue, no matter how clear cut, he'll go way out of his way to try finding some sort of middle ground where he can call both sides of an issue extreme or incorrect and make himself seem above the "spin" of it all, and it bugs the hell out of me. He thinks that everyone should want to do what he says because his common sense is so damn balanced and intelligent. If anyone dares question him, then you'll see him get truly worked up. Well, I for one don't buy that bullshit of his and would prefer to get my commentary from an authentic mind.

All of that is why I believe O'Reilly deserves to be made fun of. That said, however, it is sad that our society takes humorous falsehoods to be gospel truth (as lordjedi pointed out). I don't necessarily blame Colbert for that however (and I certainly don't think his show is a bad thing), I mostly blame our society for being at a point where it makes stupid leaps of judgment when it obviously should not.


For me, I generally see two culture wars going on in the English-speaking world that are of top priority for us to handle. The first is between people who believe that the truth is something which should be struggled for with old-testament-style zeal and people who think that we should moderate and even attack our ability to pursue the truth. The second is between people who believe that private property and liberty are sacred and people who believe those same qualities should regularly be negotiated away for the sake of comfort and peace. I firmly believe that both of these cultural problems stem from an improper view of and approach to God in the English speaking world (but that's a complicated can of worms I'm not going to even try detailing at the moment).


Well, I do believe that O'Reilly is a culture warrior in his definition of the term. What he constantly tries to point out is that we are currently in a war between Traditionalists and secular progressives. The invasion from the south is part of this broad war, the secular progressives want these illegals to be here and stay forever. Other goals of secular progressives is the elimination of Christmas, God in school, God in government, furtherance of gay marriage, and basically the complete oppression of the conservative viewpoint. In this sense of the culture war ideology O'Reilly points out stuff to the public that many liberal media outlets either do not want you to know or are scared to show because it does not jive with their goals.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: PaulisDead2221
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I don't know. Maybe it's because I don't like O'Reilly, but I find Colbert's routine rather funny myself. O'Reilly's a jackass. And then he tried to title himself our cultural warrior. Uhg.


Is their even a culture war?


GOD DAMMIT SEAN WOOKIE!!! Sorry but it's the same word I had to say something again!


Dude, you're going to have to give up or just stop using the Internet. It's a losing battle. Trying to correct everyone's spelling and grammar mistakes is only going to make you go insane.

Back OT. I watch O'Reilly just about everyday. I've honestly only seen him try to "spin" a couple of things in a different light. Most of the time, he asks yes or no questions about hot bed political issues and gets really long answers from the person he's interviewing. Case in point, he asked one of the people from a group that protects illegal immigrants if she thought it was ok for people to cross our borders illegally. She kept answering that all people are protected by the 4th amendment. This all had something to do with a household of illegal immigrants that the government busted into and essentially hauled people off to be deported. So basically, she wouldn't answer the question. From her answer, I gather that her opinion is that once you cross the border, illegally or not, you're protected by the 4th amendment, which is bullshit.

The only other time I've seen him "spin" an issue is when a house full of possible illegals caught fire and some children died. It was in New York and they basically have a local ordinance that says the cops can't do anything to investigate possible illegals. It was essentially a case where the house was totally overcrowded beyond what local zoning laws allow, but they were looking the other way because New York is a sanctuary city.


I don't think that was spin, that was his perception, spin is usually confused with perception.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ferris209
Well, I do believe that O'Reilly is a culture warrior in his definition of the term. What he constantly tries to point out is that we are currently in a war between Traditionalists and secular progressives. The invasion from the south is part of this broad war, the secular progressives want these illegals to be here and stay forever. Other goals of secular progressives is the elimination of Christmas, God in school, God in government, furtherance of gay marriage, and basically the complete oppression of the conservative viewpoint. In this sense of the culture war ideology O'Reilly points out stuff to the public that many liberal media outlets either do not want you to know or are scared to show because it does not jive with their goals.


Yes, those are all cultural issues, but they aren't necessarily original ideas. I know of conservatives who were concerned with those issues long before O'Reilly was. And even then, those issues aren't the end of the world. There are more important things out there. When it comes to the core problems which give birth to these issues, I've seen O'Reilly argue for the wrong side many times (or at least have no clue what he's talking about). If you find his show valuable, however, I won't attack that; I'm just explaining why I don't like it.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: ferris209
Well, I do believe that O'Reilly is a culture warrior in his definition of the term. What he constantly tries to point out is that we are currently in a war between Traditionalists and secular progressives. The invasion from the south is part of this broad war, the secular progressives want these illegals to be here and stay forever. Other goals of secular progressives is the elimination of Christmas, God in school, God in government, furtherance of gay marriage, and basically the complete oppression of the conservative viewpoint. In this sense of the culture war ideology O'Reilly points out stuff to the public that many liberal media outlets either do not want you to know or are scared to show because it does not jive with their goals.


Yes, those are all cultural issues, but they aren't necessarily original ideas. I know of conservatives who were concerned with those issues long before O'Reilly was. And even then, those issues aren't the end of the world. There are more important things out there. When it comes to the core problems which give birth to these issues, I've seen O'Reilly argue for the wrong side many times (or at least have no clue what he's talking about). If you find his show valuable, however, I won't attack that; I'm just explaining why I don't like it.


Cool.