The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

[Warren Dew]

Okay, can anyone translate Coito's last post for me? I think he was responding to me, but by the third or fourth little chop, I realized that he was saying things I'd already addressed, or that were completely irrelevant.

He was saying things you'd already addressed because he was responding to a post where you were saying things you'd already said.

Basically, you seem to have noticed only things that affected Democrats, like the swift boat ads - and you seem to have misattributed them to Bush, rather than to the swifties - while Coito remembers the things that affected Republicans, like people calling Bush a "war criminal".

[Warren Dew]

I don't support the teabaggers.

Coito, considering how you normally are opposed to misrepresentation such in the media, would you mind ceasing the use of the derogatory term "teabagger" and using the neutral term "Tea Party" instead?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't support the teabaggers.

Coito, considering how you normally are opposed to misrepresentation such in the media, would you mind ceasing the use of the derogatory term "teabagger" and using the neutral term "Tea Party" instead?

Well, my understanding is that early on in the movement, the tea party folks wore tea bags as symbols and also sent tea bags to members of congress as a form of protest.



I kind of lump it in with "Obamacare" -- I've been lambasted for using that word too. I had the moderators here actually change a thread I created when Obamacare was passed to eliminate the use of the word Obamacare because they thought my use of the word showed "bias." I was shocked because Democrats had used the word Obamacare to replace "Hillarycare" and to identify what we were talking about as distinct from the several plans bandied about at the time. That is the only instance, however, that I am aware of where an allegedly pejorative term was expunged by the moderators here (when it didn't relate to a personal attack on a member).

But, I see your point and no offense was intended - I don't think it's a big deal to use the word teabagger, especially given the slew of pejoratives used all the time like "merkins" and "Repugnicans" or "Repugs." But, since you asked, I'll certainly bear it in mind in the future to use Tea Party.

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay, can anyone translate Coito's last post for me? I think he was responding to me, but by the third or fourth little chop, I realized that he was saying things I'd already addressed, or that were completely irrelevant.

He was saying things you'd already addressed because he was responding to a post where you were saying things you'd already said.

Basically, you seem to have noticed only things that affected Democrats, like the swift boat ads - and you seem to have misattributed them to Bush, rather than to the swifties - while Coito remembers the things that affected Republicans, like people calling Bush a "war criminal".

For the record, I remember both. I am very much of the opinion that all sides have no shame in lobbing insults and pejoratives, and it has been going on for hundreds of years.

I also do not subscribe to any notion that one side or the other is of superior intelligence. From what I've seen, the average Democrat is not in the least more intelligent than the average Republican, and there is no indication that either party has a higher than average IQ.

I have noticed that one of the hallmarks of liberal Democrats over the last 30-40 years has been to denigrate their oppositions intelligence. It's a running theme. Every Republican is an idiot, and every Democrat is o-so-thoughtful and intelligent. Eisenhower was criticized by his opposition for being stupid, so was Ford, obviously (a klutz and an ignoramus, even though he was anything but that), and Reagan of course was a moron, and George HWBush even moreso, and of course, nobody was dumber than W. The only Republican Since Hoover who hasn't been characterized as a stupid idiot was Nixon, and the only reason he wasn't called stupid is because they called him an evil genius.

This isn't to say that Democrats are "worse" at this kind of thing than Republicans. Their thing is just to call Republicans stupid, and that carried over to the Tea Party folks too. They were all stupid, morons, idiots - the great unwashed -brainwashed and dumb.

European liberals paint all of the US with that brush, using terms like "Freedumb" -and calling us "merkins" (alluding to the dumb sounding southern accent).

There is a definite pattern.

[Trolldor]

The government and corporations are not one in the same - except where the government controls the corporations.

you mean except where the corporations control the government.

Neither case applies.

LOL.

[sandinista]

The government and corporations are not one in the same - except where the government controls the corporations.

you mean except where the corporations control the government.

Neither case applies.

LOL.

please enlighten us dullards oh great one.

[Trolldor]

It's fairly simple. Corporations fund individuals or parties, those parties already exists in a specific ideological frame. The American people elect those parties knowing that frame.

Corporations don't control shit, they don't make legislation, they just appeal to those elected officials who already have no qualms about making such decisions. They don't influence Government through any exercise of power, they wouldn't have any influence at all if those elected in to office were at all willing to say "no" to them.

[Trolldor]

To whit:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/tobacco-cash- ... 17kit.html

[sandinista]

It's fairly simple. Corporations fund individuals or parties, those parties already exists in a specific ideological frame. The American people elect those parties knowing that frame.

Corporations don't control shit, they don't make legislation, they just appeal to those elected officials who already have no qualms about making such decisions. They don't influence Government through any exercise of power, they wouldn't have any influence at all if those elected in to office were at all willing to say "no" to them.

guess your not as smart as I thought.

[Coito ergo sum]

To whit:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/tobacco-cash- ... 17kit.html

Wow! A ban specifically to exclude one kind of company from the political process while allowing other kinds of companies to participate? That's pretty amazing...rather a disconcerting event, I think. I know tobacco companies are demonized, but my gosh - so, companies that want to put tobacco out of business can donate money to political candidates, but tobacco companies can't?

Be careful not to step in the bullshit down under, my Ozzie friends!

[Trolldor]

Hardly bullshit. It's a brilliant step in the right direction. If you'd read it properly you'd realise it isn't the first of its kind nor are tobacco companies the only target.

[Trolldor]

It's fairly simple. Corporations fund individuals or parties, those parties already exists in a specific ideological frame. The American people elect those parties knowing that frame.

Corporations don't control shit, they don't make legislation, they just appeal to those elected officials who already have no qualms about making such decisions. They don't influence Government through any exercise of power, they wouldn't have any influence at all if those elected in to office were at all willing to say "no" to them.

guess your not as smart as I thought.

You just don't want to admit that it's the people's fault.

[sandinista]

It's fairly simple. Corporations fund individuals or parties, those parties already exists in a specific ideological frame. The American people elect those parties knowing that frame.

Corporations don't control shit, they don't make legislation, they just appeal to those elected officials who already have no qualms about making such decisions. They don't influence Government through any exercise of power, they wouldn't have any influence at all if those elected in to office were at all willing to say "no" to them.

guess your not as smart as I thought.

You just don't want to admit that it's the people's fault.

What is? Sorry my friend, but the people don't have a monopoly on violence which belongs to the state/corporations. Not so easy when any real dissent winds you up in prison or with a face full of tear gas and rubber bullets.

[Trolldor]

lol.
Except that it doesn't.

[GreyICE]

Okay, can anyone translate Coito's last post for me? I think he was responding to me, but by the third or fourth little chop, I realized that he was saying things I'd already addressed, or that were completely irrelevant.

I can try to pick out the relevant points I guess, but does anyone else find it pretty much incoherent in that format? Oh well, maybe tonight if I have some time

I addressed every point you made directly.

It should be coherent to anyone who can speak English. You make an assertion, and I address that assertion. If I put it all in one big long post, you wouldn't know which specific assertion I am addressing.

Let me explain it to you: You read your little point which I quoted - and then right after it, what I type there, is my response to your point. Got it? There...that's not so hard, now is it?

No, see, English does not quite work like that. It has constructs called sentences and paragraphs and writing. These build together to form a coherent whole. The whole should be analyzed as a work before deconstructing it.

Really reading your post again I still have no idea what points you want to make or what you are trying to say. You seem to want to contest that the demonetization predates the Clinton Era as a widespread phenomena. This is simply not the case. You want to say that the media favored Gore and was biased against Bush. Studies have not generally agreed with you. In fact studies typically show reasonable levels of balance when objective measures are used in broadcast media. You want the Swiftboat vets to be unrelated to Bush when some of his biggest supporters were donating millions to them and Jeb wrote them a personal thank you note in January 2005.

Is your point that the Democrats didn't control congress for only 12 years in the last 80 when I can count 22 since 1945? Was it that Youtube videos beat science for determining bias? Was it that a vote against a spending bill is the same as a vote to disband the US military?

No my friend, you may have written many, many words inbetween my words, but I fail to see much addressing points or making any occurring. I don't think that it happened. Honestly, I'd spend less time trying to jump up in the middle of what I am saying yelling "interjection!" and more time trying to think of what you would like to say rather than spinning the wheels in the interjections. I have never in the past enjoyed talking to hyperactive kids who jump up and down and interject every time you pause to take a breath. I submit the posting style may resemble that rather more than you might intend.