View Full Version : It Takes a Comedian...
Rohirrim
03-06-2011, 10:19 AM
To point out the blatant hypocrisy of the Right:
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:376266" 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/thu-march-3-2011/crisis-in-the-dairyland---for-richer-and-poorer---teachers-and-wall-street">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Tags: <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>
The guy makes more than 90% of the CEOs in the country. I would like to know how many people on his staff have 100% medical and full pension benefits. I am kind of thinking he has a lot of nonpaid interns on his set.
Mr.Meanie
03-07-2011, 08:13 AM
The guy makes more than 90% of the CEOs in the country. I would like to know how many people on his staff have 100% medical and full pension benefits. I am kind of thinking he has a lot of nonpaid interns on his set.
I would bet just about everyone involved in the production of that show (and any show on TV) are in some sort of union.
I would bet just about everyone involved in the production of that show (and any show on TV) are in some sort of union.
Except those intern slaves. But even if they are in a union how many have full ride pensions and medical. I bet zero.
Fedaykin
03-07-2011, 01:11 PM
The guy makes more than 90% of the CEOs in the country. I would like to know how many people on his staff have 100% medical and full pension benefits. I am kind of thinking he has a lot of nonpaid interns on his set.
Stewart only makes a tiny fraction of the CEOs being talked about in that video (CEOs of majjor financial institutions). According to answers.com he makes 1.5m/y from his work on The Daily Show. Taking a look at 2009 compensation for major financial institutions they range between 10m and 40m. No one complains about the CEO of your local bank who make reasonable pay -- just these dead weight MBAs.
Also, Stewart is the main reason that show is successful vs. these "top talent" CEOs who did nothing but lead their companies and this country to financial disaster by making stupid decisions like allowing 50-500:1 leveraging ratios to boost their stock option value.
Stewart only makes a tiny fraction of the CEOs being talked about in that video (CEOs of majjor financial institutions). According to answers.com he makes 1.5m/y from his work on The Daily Show. Taking a look at 2009 compensation for major financial institutions they range between 10m and 40m. No one complains about the CEO of your local bank who make reasonable pay -- just these dead weight MBAs.
Also, Stewart is the main reason that show is successful vs. these "top talent" CEOs who did nothing but lead their companies and this country to financial disaster by making stupid decisions like allowing 50-500:1 leveraging ratios to boost their stock option value.
If you think Stewart only banks 1.5m a year then there really is no help for you.
If you think most CEO's make between 10m and 40m then there really is no help for you. There are tens of thousand of companies and a few wall street firms are not representative of CEO pay.
Odysseus
03-07-2011, 01:46 PM
It's too bad CEO salaries aren't compensated like Jon Stewart. If he fails he loses his job.
OrangenBlueOhio
03-07-2011, 02:20 PM
If you think Stewart only banks 1.5m a year then there really is no help for you.
If you think most CEO's make between 10m and 40m then there really is no help for you. There are tens of thousand of companies and a few wall street firms are not representative of CEO pay.
Are you able to see anything through those fox colored glasses? I suppose you're gonna tell us that most ceo's deserve the outlandish amounts of money thrown at them. I guess they can be happy they have some of us fooled.
Fedaykin
03-07-2011, 02:40 PM
If you think Stewart only banks 1.5m a year then there really is no help for you.
Stewart banks a LOT more than that -- from book deals and other work he does. Google shows a multitude of sources stating his salary from TDS is 1.5m. A lot for sure -- but again he's the primary reason that show is a success. Before he joined it was crap.
If you think most CEO's make between 10m and 40m then there really is no help for you. There are tens of thousand of companies and a few wall street firms are not representative of CEO pay.
Wow you do love your straw men. I never claimed *most* CEOs make that much. I explicity state that we're talking about the CEOs of major financial institutions.
If you aren't willy to participate honestly -- don't participate.
Wow you do love your straw men. I never claimed *most* CEOs make that much. I explicity state that we're talking about the CEOs of major financial institutions.
If you aren't willy to participate honestly -- don't participate.
But I did. I said Stewart makes more cabbage than 90% of the CEOs in the country. You point out the blipping obvious that there are a few that make more than him. Well no ****.
CEO's of major financial institutions make more than just about anyone, always have and always will. No one will ever know if they are worth it or not. The market determines that and it says they are.
And don't call me willy.
Fedaykin
03-07-2011, 03:25 PM
But I did. I said Stewart makes more cabbage than 90% of the CEOs in the country. You point out the blipping obvious that there are a few that make more than him. Well no ****.
To which my reply was Stewart was lampooning the ones that do make 8 figures (despite being abysmal failures). Try to keep up, hmmm?
To which my reply was Stewart was lampooning the ones that do make 8 figures (despite being abysmal failures). Try to keep up, hmmm?
The guy likely makes 8 figures himself and is in the top 0.1% of all the folks in the nation and easily in the top 10% of CEOs. He might as well be lampooning himself which was precisely my point. The catching up is all yours my friend.
What did your research uncover about what his workers are making and what their benefits are? How many unpaid interns does he have?
Fedaykin
03-07-2011, 04:52 PM
The guy likely makes 8 figures himself and is in the top 0.1% of all the folks in the nation and easily in the top 10% of CEOs. He might as well be lampooning himself which was precisely my point. The catching up is all yours my friend.
He makes 1.5m as part of The Daily Show. He's actually underpaid with respect to his peers.
He does make 8 figures when you tally up the proceeds from his other (non Daily Show) ventures but that's neither here nor there.
What did your research uncover about what his workers are making and what their benefits are? How many unpaid interns does he have?
Don't know, don't care. It seems you are not clear on what is being lampooned here. Have you watched the video?
TonyR
03-07-2011, 06:11 PM
He might as well be lampooning himself which was precisely my point.
Why should he be lampooning himself? Where are Stewart's failures in his current job? Stewart is doing his job quite well, those he's talking about often aren't. What part of this are you failing to grasp?
Why should he be lampooning himself? Where are Stewart's failures in his current job? Stewart is doing his job quite well, those he's talking about often aren't. What part of this are you failing to grasp?
What part of I make 10m a year and don't pay my employees **** so I am pretty much just like the guys on wall street don't you understand?
The guy barely outdraws Conan, the most unfunny comedian in television history.
TDmvp
03-08-2011, 12:07 AM
Jon just re-upped with Com Cent in 2009 for a undisclosed amount , as did Colbert.
The 1.5 million figure that keeps being floated as what he makes is what he made but is from a contract signed 8 years ago and not really a current number.
source ... me and google heheh ...
TonyR
03-08-2011, 07:55 AM
What part of I make 10m a year and don't pay my employees **** so I am pretty much just like the guys on wall street don't you understand?
The guy barely outdraws Conan, the most unfunny comedian in television history.
First, Stewart is not the CEO of the company that pays him or those who work for his show. So, to be frank, your comparison sucks.
Second, Stewart outdrew Conan by almost 58% last month. That's a little more than "barely". http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/daily-show-tops-conan-again-162823
peacepipe
03-08-2011, 08:08 AM
Except those intern slaves. But even if they are in a union how many have full ride pensions and medical. I bet zero.probably all of them. my employer pays all my pension,annuity or medical.
probably all of them. my employer pays all my pension,annuity or medical.
Isn't it funny the people who complain and bitch the most about health care and pensions are the ones who are getting the free rides in the first place?
No wonder you have an entitlement mentality.
First, Stewart is not the CEO of the company that pays him or those who work for his show. So, to be frank, your comparison sucks.
Second, Stewart outdrew Conan by almost 58% last month. That's a little more than "barely". http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/daily-show-tops-conan-again-162823
Your point only makes the comparison even more valid. He doesn't even have profit-loss or hire-fire responsbility and he is bagging serious coin. Nice work if you can get it.
A little bit more statistically valid sample size attached.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/03/late-night-tv-ratings-week-nightline-up-conan-late-show-down-tonight-show-daily-show-even/84538
TonyR
03-08-2011, 01:17 PM
Your point only makes the comparison even more valid.
If by "more valid" you mean "less valid" then yes, I agree.
A little bit more statistically valid sample size attached.
LOL 40% is still more than "barely", don't you think?!?
If by "more valid" you mean "less valid" then yes, I agree.
LOL 40% is still more than "barely", don't you think?!?
A statistical genius you are not. Lets call you One Data Point Tony from now on. You quote again only the last week's data. What a maroon. I provided a chart with a little historical perspective which shows significant week to week variations. I suggest you call up Wags and have him teach you a few things about statistics please.
Fedaykin
03-08-2011, 01:26 PM
Your point only makes the comparison even more valid. He doesn't even have profit-loss or hire-fire responsbility and he is bagging serious coin. Nice work if you can get it.
A little bit more statistically valid sample size attached.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/03/late-night-tv-ratings-week-nightline-up-conan-late-show-down-tonight-show-daily-show-even/84538
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what Stewart makes in comparison to the majority of CEOs. He's bagging on the 8 figure idiots who drove their companies to ruin and the news personalities that stuck up for them and their "need" for that kind of compensation.
Surely you believe that people should be paid what they are worth right? How much is a CEO that drives a company to ruin worth? 8 Figures?
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what Stewart makes in comparison to the majority of CEOs. He's bagging on the 8 figure idiots who drove their companies to ruin and the news personalities that stuck up for them and their "need" for that kind of compensation.
Surely you believe that people should be paid what they are worth right? How much is a CEO that drives a company to ruin worth? 8 Figures?
Are the CEO's worth more than some snot-nosed baseball player who makes 20m a year playing a kids game? Yeah, I think they are.
Of course guys running major companies (50k+ employees) should be pulling in 8 figures, no question about it.
Entertainers and ballplayers are majorly overpaid yet you suck up to their liberal BS as if it is gospel. Neither of those professions are real work.
Stewart is good for a few laughs but it is hard to take him seriously as you seem to be doing on this particular issue.
Fedaykin
03-08-2011, 02:08 PM
Are the CEO's worth more than some snot-nosed baseball player who makes 20m a year playing a kids game? Yeah, I think they are.
Of course guys running major companies (50k+ employees) should be pulling in 8 figures, no question about it.
The market disagrees with your unsupported assertion. As you're so keen to point out, very few CEOs of companies (even the ones that didn't drive their companies into ruin) make 8 figures. Most get the bulk of their compensation with performance based incentives like stock.
For example, the CEO of HP generally makes about 7 figures/yr (base salary + bonuses) despite being a company of over 300k employees. (also despite being, at least in the last decade, staffed with dead weight MBA wankers)
Entertainers and ballplayers are majorly overpaid yet you suck up to their liberal BS as if it is gospel. Neither of those professions are real work.
What you or I think is overpaid is irrelevant. People in various professions are paid what they are worth to their employers. Some ballplayers and entertainers make huge sums because they are worth that to the companies they work for. An elite tier actor gets paid 8 figures for one movie because they draw massive audiences -- not because anyone thinks they have a lot of responsibility.
You're smart enough to know people are *not* paid based on responsibility but on their worth in their industry. And again -- CEOs that have driven their companies to ruin are worth very little, despite all their responsibility.
And lets be real, CEOs of 50k+ companies aren't running he show themselves (that would be impossible). Unless they are a majority shareholders, they make high level strategic decisions that the board can overrule. That kind of company is run indirectly by the shareholders through their representatives on the board.
Stewart is good for a few laughs but it is hard to take him seriously as you seem to be doing on this particular issue.
Stewart (and his other writers) are masters at exposing hypocrisy and other stupidity.
The market disagrees with your unsupported assertion. As you're so keen to point out, very few CEOs of companies (even the ones that didn't drive their companies into ruin) make 8 figures. Most get the bulk of their compensation with performance based incentives like stock.
For example, the CEO of HP generally makes about 7 figures/yr (base salary + bonuses) despite being a company of over 300k employees. (also despite being, at least in the last decade, staffed with dead weight MBA wankers)
What you or I think is overpaid is irrelevant. People in various professions are paid what they are worth to their employers. Some ballplayers and entertainers make huge sums because they are worth that to the companies they work for. An elite tier actor gets paid 8 figures for one movie because they draw massive audiences -- not because anyone thinks they have a lot of responsibility.
You're smart enough to know people are *not* paid based on responsibility but on their worth in their industry. And again -- CEOs that have driven their companies to ruin are worth very little, despite all their responsibility.
And lets be real, CEOs of 50k+ companies aren't running he show themselves (that would be impossible). Unless they are a majority shareholders, they make high level strategic decisions that the board can overrule. That kind of company is run indirectly by the shareholders through their representatives on the board.
Stewart (and his other writers) are masters at exposing hypocrisy and other stupidity.
And oblivious to his own.
You kind of have yourself tied up in knots in your own arguments. You really don't what side of the argument you are on as you have on several all in one thread.
Anyway, an elite CEO is just like an elite ballplayer or entertainer. They attract investors and clients just like those folks attract fans and viewers and will always be disproportionately compensated.
Like some ballteams they will end up sucking and the management will need to be changed. Just like your annoying little runt of a coach you just paid 8 figures to to go coach somewhere else.
TonyR
03-08-2011, 05:40 PM
You quote again only the last week's data.
Why are we moving the goalposts? Here's your original quote:
The guy barely outdraws Conan...
I just showed you two different statistics showing you that he outdrew Conan by a large margin. Proven wrong, you desperately scramble to find some evidence that he doesn't/hasn't always outdrawn Conan. But isn't the most recent measurement the most relevant, and isn't 40% rather signifcant? The answer to both questions is yes. You really need to move along because you're losing this argument about Jon Stewart at every level. The comparison to a corporate CEO is weak, and his "barely" outdrawing Conan has been disproven. Put down your sword and live to fight another day.
Fedaykin
03-08-2011, 07:07 PM
And oblivious to his own.
You've yet to demonstrate any hypocrisy on his part. Still waiting on that. You haven't either provided evidence that what he's pointing out isn't true. You're pretty much failing on all accounts.
You kind of have yourself tied up in knots in your own arguments. You really don't what side of the argument you are on as you have on several all in one thread.
Anyway, an elite CEO is just like an elite ballplayer or entertainer. They attract investors and clients just like those folks attract fans and viewers and will always be disproportionately compensated.
Like some ballteams they will end up sucking and the management will need to be changed. Just like your annoying little runt of a coach you just paid 8 figures to to go coach somewhere else.
And the rest of this is just meandering attempts to change the subject.
Why are we moving the goalposts? Here's your original quote:
I just showed you two different statistics showing you that he outdrew Conan by a large margin. Proven wrong, you desperately scramble to find some evidence that he doesn't/hasn't always outdrawn Conan. But isn't the most recent measurement the most relevant, and isn't 40% rather signifcant? The answer to both questions is yes. You really need to move along because you're losing this argument about Jon Stewart at every level. The comparison to a corporate CEO is weak, and his "barely" outdrawing Conan has been disproven. Put down your sword and live to fight another day.
Ha! You really are one of the worst debaters ever. I said he barely outdraws Conan because I had actually looked at the chart I posted before I made my statement and before you asked me to prove it and I subsequently posted it. I actually check my facts before I post, something you should consider.
One week of ratings prove everything. Ha!
By your logic lets randomly pick the week of February 11th where Conan outdrew Stewart by 50%. Hey, isn't that significant?
Well no dumbass it isn't.
Over the 8 week period Stewart drew a 0.65 rating vs. a 0.575 for Conan, a 13% difference. Given the standard deviation of both data sets will be rather high this difference is not overly significant.
I am perfectly willing to allow Wags to review the data I have posted and arbitrate the statistical portion of this discussion. Whether I agree with him on his global warming conclusions or not he certainly does know statistics. Any sane person looking at the data I provided would conclude that Stewart barely outdraws Conan.
You've yet to demonstrate any hypocrisy on his part. Still waiting on that. You haven't either provided evidence that what he's pointing out isn't true. You're pretty much failing on all accounts.
And the rest of this is just meandering attempts to change the subject.
How is this for hypocrisy. When the writers went on strike in 2007 and 2008 he brought his show back before the strike was over without his writers.
As a member of the Writers Guild of America, Stewart was barred from writing any material for the show himself which he or his writers would ordinarily write. As a result, Stewart and the correspondents largely ad-libbed the show around preplanned topics. In an effort to fill time while keeping to these restrictions, the show aired or re-aired some previously recorded segments, and Stewart engaged in a briefly recurring mock feud with fellow late-night hosts Stephen Colbert and Conan O'Brien. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show
Ha! Stewart is a scab.
Fedaykin
03-08-2011, 10:57 PM
How is this for hypocrisy. When the writers went on strike in 2007 and 2008 he brought his show back before the strike was over without his writers.
As a member of the Writers Guild of America, Stewart was barred from writing any material for the show himself which he or his writers would ordinarily write. As a result, Stewart and the correspondents largely ad-libbed the show around preplanned topics. In an effort to fill time while keeping to these restrictions, the show aired or re-aired some previously recorded segments, and Stewart engaged in a briefly recurring mock feud with fellow late-night hosts Stephen Colbert and Conan O'Brien. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show
Ha! Stewart is a scab.
Keeping his production staff on the payroll by doing the show without violating the strike is a hypocritical act? Wait? Isn't your position that Stewart treats his staff poorly?
*sniff* I spell desperation.
Keeping his production staff on the payroll by doing the show without violating the strike is a hypocritical act? Wait? Isn't your position that Stewart treats his staff poorly?
*sniff* I spell desperation.
I think what you are smelling is your brain decomposing. Please prove your claim they were kept on the payroll, as they were not of course. Not often one gets paid during a strike except directly from the union.
Both him and Colbert came back and their ratings went up without the writers seriously damaging the reputation of their WGA union.
Stewart is a scab. Ha!
Fedaykin
03-08-2011, 11:27 PM
I think what you are smelling is your brain decomposing. Please prove your claim they were kept on the payroll, as they were not of course. Not often one gets paid during a strike except directly from the union.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Last time I checked, the lighting guys (among other production staff) weren't part of the WGA and were certainly paid for their work while Stewart was ad libbing.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Last time I checked, the lighting guys (among other production staff) weren't part of the WGA and were certainly paid for their work while Stewart was ad libbing.
Yeah, but who care about the writers he is in the same union with, huh? Ha! Ha! Ha!
I came into this thinking he was just a typical hollywood hyprocrite but it turns out he is willful scab who threw his fellow writers under the bus. But at least he renamed his show in their honor. Ha!
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-09-2011, 02:31 AM
The guy makes more than 90% of the CEOs in the country.
ROFL! Ha!
You just make this sh*t up as you go along, don't you?
The Fox News paradigm in action.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-09-2011, 02:33 AM
Keeping his production staff on the payroll by doing the show without violating the strike is a hypocritical act? Wait? Isn't your position that Stewart treats his staff poorly?
*sniff* I spell desperation.
Ha!
Jaggoff³ = pwned. ^5
TonyR
03-09-2011, 07:31 AM
I said he barely outdraws Conan because I had actually looked at the chart I posted...
LOL You really expect people to believe this? You did here what you do quite frequently: make up a statistic that supports your opinion. When proven wrong you desperately started googling to find some evidence to support your argument. Now tell us again how Jon Stewart is just like a corporate CEO. Can you find an 8 week chart to support that argument too?!?
LOL You really expect people to believe this? You did here what you do quite frequently: make up a statistic that supports your opinion. When proven wrong you desperately started googling to find some evidence to support your argument. Now tell us again how Jon Stewart is just like a corporate CEO. Can you find an 8 week chart to support that argument too?!?
Of course. I may be many things but I am not a liar.
Think about it. Why would someone just think up the opinion "Stewart barely outdraws Conan" in the ratings. It is a fairly obscure fact. Not really the kind of thing you throw out there and suddenly start looking for evidence to support. I knew it because I had seen it in studying up on Stewart to see if he was paying his interns.
I am not sure who is more riduclous in this thread you, Tweedledum, or the other guy Tweedledumber. You both have brought nothing to the discussion and have thoroughly embarrassed yourselves.
Jon Stewart is like a CEO because:
He makes as much money as nearly all of them despite having no P/L responsibility and having only a small number of people report to him.
He is a hypocrite because:
He essentially crossed the picket line his own writers were on, getting paid full salary while they didn't, and now is lamenting union workers in Wisconsin. He is the worst kind of hypocrite, a union card carrying scab. Lucky he is funny and can get away with it.
Fedaykin
03-09-2011, 02:18 PM
Jon Stewart is like a CEO because:
He makes as much money as nearly all of them despite having no P/L responsibility and having only a small number of people report to him.
More lunacy from you.
Is Brad Pitt like a CEO? How about Tom Brady? They both make as much or more money as nearly all CEOs despite having no P/L responsibility and have only a small number of people report to them.
The answer, of course, is no, and neither is Stewart. Put down the crack pipe.
He is a hypocrite because:
He essentially crossed the picket line his own writers were on, getting paid full salary while they didn't, and now is lamenting union workers in Wisconsin. He is the worst kind of hypocrite, a union card carrying scab. Lucky he is funny and can get away with it.
He didn't perform any writing duties for the show (meaning he didn't cross the picket line), and kept the rest of his production staff from going hungry. It's also quite likely that he was forced back on since he doesn't own the show and is beholden to his bosses at CC/Viacom. While Stewart is a WGA member his official duties on TDS are not limited to writing duties (obviously).
I am not sure who is more riduclous in this thread you, Tweedledum, or the other guy Tweedledumber. You both have brought nothing to the discussion and have thoroughly embarrassed yourselves.
The only one embarrassing themselves in this thread is you. You've been scrambling to find something to pin on Stewart and are utterly failing and at the same time making it clear you don't understand what is being made fun of (as evidenced by your meandering ad hominem attacks against both Stewart and the other people in this thread and by your absurd attempts to compare Stewart to a CEO).
Would you like a shovel?
More lunacy from you.
Is Brad Pitt like a CEO? How about Tom Brady? They both make as much or more money as nearly all CEOs despite having no P/L responsibility and have only a small number of people report to them.
The answer, of course, is no, and neither is Stewart. Put down the crack pipe.
The correct answer is yes. They all have disproportiate effect on the outcome of their respective entities and are paid accordingly to near ludicrous levels. There is very little difference between elite QBs, elite entertainers, and elite CEO's. They all get held accountable for the success or failure of their businesses regardless of whether it is really their fault or not. CEOs get fired far more often than starting QBs and certainly far more than elite entertainers.
I am sorry your comedic hero has issues. I think the guy is funny as hell, comedic genius level, but even he would probably be the first to admit he is more like those CEOs than he is like the teachers. One rich guy lampooning another rich guy is pretty hollow. One rich guy lampooning another rich guy (though technically he was lampooning Fox coverage and not the CEO's themselves) while the first rich guy is a scab worker is well.....rich.
Rigs11
03-09-2011, 03:24 PM
good to see the right again standing up for the rich.not sure how and athlete and a CEO compare to each other but whatever.
Hey JJJ METH: NOT EVEN ONCE!Hilarious!
good to see the right again standing up for the rich.not sure how and athlete and a CEO compare to each other but whatever.
Hey JJJ METH: NOT EVEN ONCE!Hilarious!
I understand. Logic and understanding are not your strong suits.
Lets try a different angle. How are elite QBs not like CEO's?
Mr.Meanie
03-09-2011, 03:37 PM
The correct answer is yes. They all have disproportiate effect on the outcome of their respective entities and are paid accordingly to near ludicrous levels. There is very little difference between elite QBs, elite entertainers, and elite CEO's. They all get held accountable for the success or failure of their businesses regardless of whether it is really their fault or not. CEOs get fired far more often than starting QBs and certainly far more than elite entertainers.
I am sorry your comedic hero has issues. I think the guy is funny as hell, comedic genius level, but even he would probably be the first to admit he is more like those CEOs than he is like the teachers. One rich guy lampooning another rich guy is pretty hollow. One rich guy lampooning another rich guy (though technically he was lampooning Fox coverage and not the CEO's themselves) while the first rich guy is a scab worker is well.....rich.
Short version: Everyone earning $8 figures is like a CEO. Also, rich people cannot comment on other rich people without being hypocrites.
Fedaykin
03-09-2011, 03:44 PM
The correct answer is yes. They all have disproportiate effect on the outcome of their respective entities and are paid accordingly to near ludicrous levels. There is very little difference between elite QBs, elite entertainers, and elite CEO's. They all get held accountable for the success or failure of their businesses regardless of whether it is really their fault or not. CEOs get fired far more often than starting QBs and certainly far more than elite entertainers.
So the world is populated with thousands of non-CEO CEOs huh? The Pats live or die based largely on Brady. The movies Brad Pitt is in live or die based largely on his presence.
You know what is different, that your cracked out brain can't seem to grasp?
Responsibility and accountability. Stewart, Brady and Pitt are all play vital parts in the entertainment industry not something of real importance. They are cogs in a much larger machine, and when they fail they get cut or fired not bailed out.
I am sorry your comedic hero has issues. I think the guy is funny as hell, comedic genius level, but even he would probably be the first to admit he is more like those CEOs than he is like the teachers.
No one ever claimed Stewart was like the teachers or that he's anyone's comedic hero. Once again we have a wingnut trying to cloud the issue with strawmen.
One rich guy lampooning another rich guy is pretty hollow. One rich guy lampooning another rich guy (though technically he was lampooning Fox coverage and not the CEO's themselves) while the first rich guy is a scab worker is well.....rich.
As previously pointed out, Stewart was not a scab. The only one who seems to think that is you -- and that's only because you're so desperate to find fault.
It's also clear you're still lost. The topic has nothing to do with who Stewart is, how he compares to CEOs of major financial institutions, etc. It boils down to this:
Stewart is pointing out the hypocrisy of the right in the way they treat wall street bankers (who, by the way, produce zilch as they are nothing but middlemen) vs. union member teachers.
* The bankers apparently deserve to have their contracts honored despite their institutions being bankrupt while the teachers don't.
* The bankers apparently deserve whatever pay they can get and the latter don't.
* The bankers apparently don't need to sacrifice (despite being the primary cause of all the financial problems in the country) while the teachers do.
* The bankers apparently can fail miserably and keep their taxpayer funded jobs (and their bonuses!) while the teachers can perform relatively well and have their taxpayer paid compensation reduced.
* The bankers are apparently facing poverty if they don't get their bonuses while the teachers who make less than those bonuses aren't.
I could go on, but there's a snowballs chance in hell you won't just come back with more straw men and ad hominems.
So the world is populated with thousands of non-CEO CEOs huh? The Pats live or die based largely on Brady. The movies Brad Pitt is in live or die based largely on his presence.
You know what is different, that your cracked out brain can't seem to grasp?
Responsibility and accountability. Stewart, Brady and Pitt are all play vital parts in the entertainment industry not something of real importance. They are cogs in a much larger machine, and when they fail they get cut or fired not bailed out.
No one ever claimed Stewart was like the teachers or that he's anyone's comedic hero. Once again we have a wingnut trying to cloud the issue with strawmen.
As previously pointed out, Stewart was not a scab. The only one who seems to think that is you -- and that's only because you're so desperate to find fault.
It's also clear you're still lost. The topic has nothing to do with who Stewart is, how he compares to CEOs of major financial institutions, etc. It boils down to this:
Stewart is pointing out the hypocrisy of the right in the way they treat wall street bankers (who, by the way, produce zilch as they are nothing but middlemen) vs. union member teachers.
* The bankers apparently deserve to have their contracts honored despite their institutions being bankrupt while the teachers don't.
* The bankers apparently deserve whatever pay they can get and the latter don't.
* The bankers apparently don't need to sacrifice (despite being the primary cause of all the financial problems in the country) while the teachers do.
* The bankers apparently can fail miserably and keep their taxpayer funded jobs (and their bonuses!) while the teachers can perform relatively well and have their taxpayer paid compensation reduced.
* The bankers are apparently facing poverty if they don't get their bonuses while the teachers who make less than those bonuses aren't.
I could go on, but there's a snowballs chance in hell you won't just come back with more straw men and ad hominems.
Are there thousands of NFL starting QBs and elite entertainers routinely making 8 figures? Hundreds maybe.
I see you have taken a page out of the LABF playbook when faced with arguments you can't counter start throwing around the words strawmen and ad hominems.
First off the companies got bailed out, not the CEOs. The CEO pay and bonuses for those companies receiving bailout money was overseen by the Pay Czar who in my opinion was pretty fair and unbiased. Many of the CEOs didn't want the bailout money but were literally forced to take it by the government. All the banks have paid back the bailouts. More than a couple of the CEOs lost their jobs.
I am the only one calling him a scab because I am the only one who looked a little deeper into the issue. 99% of the people don't give a rats ass and I don't blame them. I barely care myself.
To compare CEOs to teachers is a pretty futile exercise to begin with. That is like comparing Tom Brady to the waterboy.
Kyle Orton failed miserably at his job this year as measured by the team result which was the second worst in the entire league, yet he is keeping his job. Humm, maybe my QB/CEO analogy is even more right on the money than I first thought.
Short version: Everyone earning $8 figures is like a CEO. Also, rich people cannot comment on other rich people without being hypocrites.
Exactly. Someone is paying attention.
Mr.Meanie
03-09-2011, 04:16 PM
Kyle Orton failed miserably at his job this year as measured by the team result which was the second worst in the entire league, yet he is keeping his job. Humm, maybe my QB/CEO analogy is even more right on the money than I first thought.
Exactly. Someone is paying attention.
I'm also learning! This thread made me realize Norv Turner is the ultimate CEO.
I'm also learning! This thread made me realize Norv Turner is the ultimate CEO.
You got that right. See the trick is to have Chairman of the Board (AJ) fully having your back. Then you are golden no matter how many bad starts you have to a season.
Fedaykin
03-09-2011, 04:36 PM
Are there thousands of NFL starting QBs and elite entertainers routinely making 8 figures? Hundreds maybe.
Oh look! A Red Herring! The number of individuals has nothing to do with the comparison.
I see you have taken a page out of the LABF playbook when faced with arguments you can't counter start throwing around the words strawmen and ad hominems.
Not my fault logical fallacies seem to be your primary argumentative tools. This thread is rife with you avoiding the topic at hand by engaging in (among other fallacies) stawmen and attacks of Stewart's character.
I'll also point out it it's clearly you who can't deal with the actual argument as you're spending an enormous amount of energy evading all discussion of it!
First off the companies got bailed out, not the CEOs. The CEO pay and bonuses for those companies receiving bailout money was overseen by the Pay Czar who in my opinion was pretty fair and unbiased. Many of the CEOs didn't want the bailout money but were literally forced to take it by the government. All the banks have paid back the bailouts. More than a couple of the CEOs lost their jobs.
Oh look, more red herring arguments. None of the above, irregardless of its veracity, argues against the hypocrisy at hand.
I am the only one calling him a scab because I am the only one who looked a little deeper into the issue. 99% of the people don't give a rats ass and I don't blame them. I barely care myself.
Oh look, now you're back pedaling! If you bothered to actually look deeper into the issue you wouldn't be making, as I've pointed out, idiot accusations about Stewart violating the strike.
To compare CEOs to teachers is a pretty futile exercise to begin with. That is like comparing Tom Brady to the waterboy.
The comparison is not direct between them, but rather how they are treated. Once again you're trying to start a strawman argument and refusing to address the actual issue.
Answer at least one question directly:
Why is it that bankers (not just CEOs mind you) that completely failed to perform in their job capacity deserve to have their contracts honored but public union members who are in good standing don't?
Edit: Whoopsie
TonyR
03-09-2011, 04:47 PM
The correct answer is yes. They all have disproportiate effect on the outcome of their respective entities and are paid accordingly to near ludicrous levels. There is very little difference between elite QBs, elite entertainers, and elite CEO's.
You may not know this but CEO actually stands for something. Do you know what that is? Let me help you out: chief executive officer. Elite QB's and entertainers are not chief executive officers. What they are is highly paid talent, much like a top trader would be at Goldman Sachs. You may not know this either, based on your shallow grasp of all facets of the ongoing discussion here, but top traders can sometimes make more than the CEO in high performance year. Just like a top QB or entertainer might make more than the true "CEO" of whatever enterprise they work for.
I hope this helps you out, JJJ. You're as wrong now as you were at the beginning of this discussion. There's nobody here agreeing with you, only several of us laughing at your foolish display of attempted face saving in this thread. This is where you admit defeat. Why go to such lengths to "win" such a silly argument? Isn't there a Chargers forum you can post on where they might think Jon Stewart is both just like a CEO and a hypocrite for making fun of CEO's?
Spider
03-09-2011, 04:52 PM
Yeah, but who care about the writers he is in the same union with, huh? Ha! Ha! Ha!
I came into this thinking he was just a typical hollywood hyprocrite but it turns out he is willful scab who threw his fellow writers under the bus. But at least he renamed his show in their honor. Ha!
just in case someone hasnt mentioned it ..... you are an Idiot ...
You may not know this but CEO actually stands for something. Do you know what that is? Let me help you out: chief executive officer. Elite QB's and entertainers are not chief executive officers. What they are is highly paid talent, much like a top trader would be at Goldman Sachs. You may not know this either, based on your shallow grasp of all facets of the ongoing discussion here, but top traders can sometimes make more than the CEO in high performance year. Just like a top QB or entertainer might make more than the true "CEO" of whatever enterprise they work for.
I hope this helps you out, JJJ. You're as wrong now as you were at the beginning of this discussion. There's nobody here agreeing with you, only several of us laughing at your foolish display of attempted face saving in this thread. This is where you admit defeat. Why go to such lengths to "win" such a silly argument? Isn't there a Chargers forum you can post on where they might think Jon Stewart is both just like a CEO and a hypocrite for making fun of CEO's?
Really your posts get more incoherent by the minute. That first paragraph really defies description.
If you are winning this battle it is definitely Charlie Sheen style.
Oh look! A Red Herring! The number of individuals has nothing to do with the comparison.
Not my fault logical fallacies seem to be your primary argumentative tools. This thread is rife with you avoiding the topic at hand by engaging in (among other fallacies) stawmen and attacks of Stewart's character.
I'll also point out it it's clearly you who can't deal with the actual argument as you're spending an enormous amount of energy evading all discussion of it!
Oh look, more red herring arguments. None of the above, irregardless of its veracity, argues against the hypocrisy at hand.
Oh look, now you're back pedaling! If you bothered to actually look deeper into the issue you wouldn't be making, as I've pointed out, idiot accusations about Stewart violating the strike.
The comparison is not direct between them, but rather how they are treated. Once again you're trying to start a strawman argument and refusing to address the actual issue.
Answer at least one question directly:
Why is it that bankers (not just CEOs mind you) that completely failed to perform in their job capacity deserve to have their contracts honored but public union members who are in good standing don't?
Edit: Whoopsie
If is a red herrring why did you, not me, bring it up in the first place?
My take has been quite clear and simple. He is an amazingly rich guy just like the bigtime CEOs so his humor, though funny, rings hollow. When push comes to shove he doesn't even support his own union much less the teachers in Wisconsin so his humor even rises to the level of hypocritical.
Your final question shows you how little you care about actual facts and simply fall into the hype of the moment. In the entire wisconsin debate no contract is being violated. There is no breaking of any contracts so your question is based entirely on a false premise.
Whether a CEO stays or goes is for that individual company's board and shareholders to decide. I understand your angst but what some hippie thinks on a posting board is not what determines their fate. They will look at the entire record of the CEO to see if he is justified in continuing to lead the company or not. Your opinion that they all suck and should be fired is noted though and clearly shows you are serious about your research and well thought out positions.
Whether the next union contract in Wisconsin has collective bargaining or not is for the state legislature to decide. I thnk that is what they just did.
TonyR
03-10-2011, 06:26 AM
Really your posts get more incoherent by the minute. That first paragraph really defies description.
I think that paragraph is crystal clear. Sorry it went over your head. If you can be more specific about what you don't understand perhaps I can help you out. Basically I made an analogy that is far superior to yours in order to point out the faults of your argument. Perhaps you can try to explain how yours is better in your mind alone.
Fedaykin
03-10-2011, 12:25 PM
If is a red herrring why did you, not me, bring it up in the first place?
You are completely avoiding responding to my argument about the comparison between CEOs and entertainers/ballplayers and instead tried to argue about how many elite players/entertainers there are -- which is completely irrelevant. I indulged you on the inital diversion to arguing that comparison, which I should not have, but that's how it played out.
You do understand what a red herring is, right?
My take has been quite clear and simple. He is an amazingly rich guy just like the bigtime CEOs so his humor, though funny, rings hollow. When push comes to shove he doesn't even support his own union much less the teachers in Wisconsin so his humor even rises to the level of hypocritical.
Just repeating your previously debunked arguments isn't going to get you anywhere. And your take has been entirely muddled as your meander across multiple topics (mostly having to do with ad hominems against Stewart) whilst attempting to avoid the actual issue.
Your final question shows you how little you care about actual facts and simply fall into the hype of the moment. In the entire wisconsin debate no contract is being violated. There is no breaking of any contracts so your question is based entirely on a false premise.
Actually, you're just making it even more clear that you don't understand the issue here. The issue is the hypocrisy of the right, not on whether or not contracts were honored. The right seems to think that contracts are only inviolate if they don't involve union folks. This video makes it clear that as least some righties think that it's ok for contracts to be broken for union people becuase "they need to sacrifice too!" but not if they're the bankers who actually caused the problem because "we might lose all that talent!".
It's their perception and how willing they are to treat union members differently than bankers that is at issue here. The issue of contract obligations, of course, is not the only issue they are hypocritical about -- as this video demonstrates and I reiterate.
Whether a CEO stays or goes is for that individual company's board and shareholders to decide. I understand your angst but what some hippie thinks on a posting board is not what determines their fate. They will look at the entire record of the CEO to see if he is justified in continuing to lead the company or not. Your opinion that they all suck and should be fired is noted though and clearly shows you are serious about your research and well thought out positions.
Oh look, more strawmen, ad hominems and red herrings! Seriously, you righties have major issues with honesty.
Fedaykin
03-10-2011, 12:27 PM
Really your posts get more incoherent by the minute. That first paragraph really defies description.
If you are winning this battle it is definitely Charlie Sheen style.
Actually that entire post is very coherent -- you just can't address it so instead resort to an ad hominem attack (claming it's incoherent).
Honesty: Try it.
Buster Bluth
03-10-2011, 12:33 PM
Except those intern slaves. But even if they are in a union how many have full ride pensions and medical. I bet zero.
Intern slaves? Who get class credit for having a required internship?
Yeah. Likening them to slaves seems about right. ROFL!
alkemical
03-10-2011, 12:36 PM
http://mises.org/daily/5076/Ten-Reasons-Not-to-Abolish-Slavery
Ten Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery
1.
Slavery is natural. People differ, and we must expect that those who are superior in a certain way — for example, in intelligence, morality, knowledge, technological prowess, or capacity for fighting — will make themselves the masters of those who are inferior in this regard. Abraham Lincoln expressed this idea in one of his famous 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas:
There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
2.
Slavery has always existed. This reason exemplifies the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). Nevertheless, it often persuaded people, especially those of conservative bent. Even nonconservatives might give it weight on the quasi-Hayekian ground that although we do not understand why a social institution persists, its persistence may nonetheless be well grounded in a logic we have yet to understand.
3.
Every society on earth has slavery. The unspoken corollary is that every society must have slavery. The pervasiveness of an institution seems to many people to constitute compelling proof of its necessity. Perhaps, as one variant maintains, every society has slavery because certain kinds of work are so difficult or degrading that no free person will do them, and therefore unless we have slaves to do these jobs, they will not get done. Someone, as the saying went in the Old South, has to be the mud sill, and free people will not tolerate serving in this capacity.
4.
The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves. This idea was popular in the United States in the late 18th and early 19th centuries among people, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who regarded slavery as morally reprehensible yet continued to hold slaves and to obtain personal services from them and income from the products these "servants" (as they preferred to call them) were compelled to produce. It would be cruel to set free people who would then, at best, fall into destitution and suffering.
5.
Without masters, the slaves will die off. This idea is the preceding one pushed to its extreme. Even after slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865, many people continued to voice this idea. Northern journalists traveling in the South immediately after the war reported that, indeed, the blacks were in the process of becoming extinct because of their high death rate, low birth rate, and miserable economic condition. Sad but true, some observers declared, the freed people really were too incompetent, lazy, or immoral to behave in ways consistent with their own group survival. (See my 1977 book Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy, 1865–1914.)
6.
Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves. This argument became popular in the South in the decades before the War between the States. Its leading exponent was the proslavery writer George Fitzhugh, whose book titles speak for themselves: Sociology for the South, or, the Failure of Free Society (1854) and Cannibals All!, or, Slaves Without Masters (1857). Fitzhugh seems to have taken many of his ideas from the reactionary, racist, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. The expression "wage slave" still echoes this antebellum outlook. True to his sociological theories, Fitzhugh wanted to extend slavery in the United States to working-class white people, for their own good!
7.
Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils. In the United States many people assumed that the slaveholders would never permit the termination of the slave system without an all-out fight to preserve it. Sure enough, when the Confederacy and the Union went to war — set aside that the immediate issue was not the abolition of slavery but the secession of eleven Southern states — great bloodshed and other evils did ensue. These tragic events seemed, in many people's minds, to validate the reason they had given for opposing abolition. (They evidently overlooked that, except in Haiti, slavery was abolished everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere without large-scale violence.)
8.
Without slavery the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem. Preservation of social order therefore rules out the abolition of slavery. Southerners lived in dread of slave uprisings. Northerners in the mid-19th century found the situation in their own region already sufficiently intolerable, owing to the massive influx of drunken, brawling Irishmen into the country in the 1840s and 1850s. Throwing free blacks, whom the Irish generally disliked, into the mix would well-nigh guarantee social chaos.
9.
Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Serious people cannot afford to waste their time considering such farfetched ideas.
10.
Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise.
Fedaykin
03-10-2011, 12:37 PM
Intern slaves? Who get class credit for having a required internship?
Yeah. Likening them to slaves seems about right. ROFL!
In JJJ's strange little world, the only thing of value is money.
In JJJ's strange little world, the only thing of value is money.
Nope. Facts, honesty, friends, and family rank right up there.
alkemical
03-10-2011, 12:54 PM
Nope. Facts, honesty, friends, and family rank right up there.
so you're batting at most 50%, not bad for statistics.
Buster Bluth
03-10-2011, 12:54 PM
Nope. Facts, honesty, friends, and family rank right up there.
Yet student interns are "slaves" in your eyes because they're not getting paid in anything other than experience.
Neat-o, gang.