John Stewart biltchslaps repubs again

[Rigs11]

Late Night: Jon Stewart: Republicans don't like most Americans
On Tuesday night's episode of 'The Daily Show," Jon Stewart took aim at Republicans who claim that the growing 'Occupy' movement is a divisive phenomenon that pits Americans against other Americans.

Stewart kicked off the segment with a montage of conservatives rallying their base with bellicose rhetoric: "Take our country back!", "Get your musket!" and so on. He followed it with a series of clips in which some of the very same Republicans expressed their dismay over the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Most notable was House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who expressed his increasing concern over the "growing mobs occupying Wall Street" and characterized the protests as class warfare. "Believe it or not, some in this town have condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans," he said.

Stewart seized upon Cantor's apparent inconsistency. "If Republicans don't condone pitting Americans against Americans, then who is it that we Americans should be taking this country back from?" he wondered.

Cue another montage of Republicans enumerating their many, many enemies: liberals, Hollywood, Planned Parenthood, labor unions, "tenured professors who can flunk you for being too openly conservative," federal employees, people who support tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.

Stewart suggested that, not coincidentally, the list of America's enemies was more or less a list of people who don't vote Republican. "It must be tough to love America so much but hate almost three-quarters of the people living in it," he concluded.

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:400060" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-18-2011/scorn-in-the-u-s-a-">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/10/late-night-jon-stewart-republicans-dont-like-most-americans.html?track=lat-pick

[sinuous sausage]

are you implying liberals don't disdain the common man for his vulgar common sense? In my experience, prigressives are in love w/ their purportedly enlightened idea of America (often just disguised vanity), and seldom does the actual American or his wants enter the liberal's consciousness. Public sentiment matters to the prig when he wants it to matter; it happens on the Right, too, but I dunno if conservatives ever claimed to be standing up for the little man like those on the Left do, which only makes the hypocrisy more revolting IMO.

[Spider]

, but I dunno if conservatives ever claimed to be standing up for the little man like those on the Left do, which only makes the hypocrisy more revolting IMO.

have you been asleep since the 80's ?

[sinuous sausage]

I wish. What happened?

[Spider]

I wish. What happened?

nothing go back to sleep

[sinuous sausage]

In the words of the great Bono, I'm "wide awake" meow.

Maybe it's due to you and I not being on the same side of the ideological fence, but my interpretation of conservatism is one of "we'll guarantee the freedom of the little man to make his own success," while that of American liberalism is one of "we'll guarantee the little man success, or at least healthcare, a home, a job, retirement, etc."


I can easily see how the first proposition could be construed as cold-hearted and the second as magnanimous, but also grant me how I could easily construe the first one as realistic and the second as chimeric. Conservatism, to me, much more effectively deals w/ the caprices and blights of our well-documented human nature than progressivism does. It's probably a matter of what you and I think "standing up" for the little man looks like.

[Spider]

In the words of the great Bono, I'm "wide awake" meow.

Maybe it's due to you and I not being on the same side of the ideological fence, but my interpretation of conservatism is one of "we'll guarantee the freedom of the little man to make his own success," while that of American liberalism is one of "we'll guarantee the little man success, or at least healthcare, a home, a job, retirement, etc."


I can easily see how the first proposition could be construed as cold-hearted and the second as magnanimous, but also grant me how I could easily construe the first one as realistic and the second as chimeric. Conservatism, to me, much more effectively deals w/ the caprices and blights of our well-documented human nature than progressivism does. It's probably a matter of what you and I think "standing up" for the little man looks like.

think you need another cup of coffee , the we grantee the little man went out the window with supply side economics aka trickle down economics .. Reagan saw to that when he put government in between labor and management over the air controllers strike

[sinuous sausage]

think you need another cup of coffee , the we grantee the little man went out the window with supply side economics aka trickle down economics .. Reagan saw to that when he put government in between labor and management over the air controllers strike

I'm confused how that pertains to what we're talking aboot. The dubious claims of supply side economics did nothing to contradict my stated interpretation of conservatism...only if you submit to the interpretation of modern-day liberalism does supply side economics invalidate the ideology. The failure of some of Reagan's economic theories does not invalidate conservatism (as so eloquently defined by me) since conservatism never seeks to guarantee material success. That's liberalism: they're the ones who believe every person has unassailable rights derived from the material.

[Spider]

I'm confused how that pertains to what we're talking aboot. The dubious claims of supply side economics did nothing to contradict my stated interpretation of conservatism...only if you submit to the interpretation of modern-day liberalism does supply side economics invalidate the ideology. The failure of some of Reagan's economic theories does not invalidate conservatism (as so eloquently defined by me) since conservatism never seeks to guarantee material success. That's liberalism: they're the ones who believe every person has unassailable rights derived from the material.

sure it did , Look I had a friend that opened a store in Casper Wyoming , Wal Mart opened up to , the difference , the Local government paid for the parking lot , the access roads , cut taxes on wal Mart etc ........ My Buddy didnt get 1 red cent , Now that is a direct part of trickle down / supply side economics ...Like I say your dream died in the 80's it isnt making sure even the little guy makes it , it is making sure the biggest contributors make it

[sinuous sausage]

sure it did , Look I had a friend that opened a store in Casper Wyoming , Wal Mart opened up to , the difference , the Local government paid for the parking lot , the access roads , cut taxes on wal Mart etc ........ My Buddy didnt get 1 red cent , Now that is a direct part of trickle down / supply side economics ...Like I say your dream died in the 80's it isnt making sure even the little guy makes it , it is making sure the biggest contributors make it

Eh? How is the government donating resources to Wal-Mart a refutation of Trickel Down economics? I don't know the whole story of your buddy in Cheyenne, but a cursory take on the story seems to indicate the local government playing favorites, dare I say imposing itself and distorting the market, as well as screwing over your bro. I don't like to see the little man who probably put loads of time and effort into his enterprise get worked over because the government decided to support his competitors. That sounds like an argument for a smaller government

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even Saint Ron's own budget director admits trickle-down economics were a massive failure and that the GOP hosed the U.S. economy...

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/7735-reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy

But reading posts from the denialists is still amusing. :D

[Bronx33]

I put zero merit in comedians and if you let a comedian sway your vote (then you're a tool)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I put zero merit in comedians and if you let a comedian sway your vote (then you're a tool)

Yep - you're all about "attack the messenger when you can't refute the message."

We get it.

[Bronx33]

Yep - you're all about "attack the messenger when you can't refute the message."

We get it.


make sense!!! it makes it much more interesting for the reader.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I put zero merit in comedians and if you let a comedian sway your vote (then you're a tool)

They think that Jon Stewart is an intellectual. :rofl:

[Rigs11]

Stewart continually points out the hypocrisy of the right.him being a comedian does not change the facts,he uses clips in most of his segments.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Stewart continually points out the hypocrisy of the right.him being a comedian does not change the facts,he uses clips in most of his segments.

Right.

You guys are hilarious.

[ant1999e]

Stewart continually points out the hypocrisy of the right.

And ignores the hypocrisy of the left.

[Spider]

Eh? How is the government donating resources to Wal-Mart a refutation of Trickel Down economics? I don't know the whole story of your buddy in Cheyenne, but a cursory take on the story seems to indicate the local government playing favorites, dare I say imposing itself and distorting the market, as well as screwing over your bro. I don't like to see the little man who probably put loads of time and effort into his enterprise get worked over because the government decided to support his competitors. That sounds like an argument for a smaller government

sorry I thought you was the one that said this "we'll guarantee the freedom
allocating funds like that is freedom how ?

[Spider]

and it wasnt Cheyenne it was in Casper

[Garcia Bronco]

I watch John Stewart a bunch and he gets everybody. It's a quality show.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

make sense!!! it makes it much more interesting for the reader.

You didn't dispute anything Stewart said, opting instead to go straight to personal attacks.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that such tactics make "sense" in your mind.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Stewart continually points out the hypocrisy of the right.him being a comedian does not change the facts,he uses clips in most of his segments.

Hey, if John Stewart says Cheyenne is the capitol of Wyoming, don't you believe him! After all, he's just a comedian. ;)

[Bronx33]

I watch John Stewart a bunch and he gets everybody. It's a quality show.

RigsStewart continually points out the hypocrisy of the right.him being a comedian does not change the facts,he uses clips in most of his segments.




rigs fails to mention those moments instead only remembers the jabs at the right it appears.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Rigs



rigs fails to mention those moments instead only remembers the jabs at the right it appears.

I guess this response is a way to avoid admitting that the jabs in the OP were on target.

[Bronx33]

I guess this response is a way to avoid admitting that the jabs in the OP were on target.


Ummmmmm no but yet again you failed to read and comprehend my point ( par for the course) but you keep on keepin on.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ummmmmm no but yet again you failed to read and comprehend my point ( par for the course) but you keep on keepin on.

Can't read something that doesn't exist.

You had no point - just "attack the messenger" followed by a deflection.

As usual, you ducked the challenge of trying to refute anything Stewart said about the right.

[Garcia Bronco]

Stewart rags Obama and his Administration all the time.

[Garcia Bronco]

In fact the real " liberal" show is the Colbert Report.