Comments 1 - 40 of 70 Next » Last » Search these comments
What if the parents just don't have money to feed the child? It would result in an empty stomach and an empty soul.
Thoughtless comment by him.
That damn Liberal sack of schill Jon Stewart.
Did he manage to bitch about any of Obama's lies?
You posted a video made by a funny man, I didn't watch it.
That damn Liberal sack of schill Jon Stewart.
Did he manage to bitch about any of Obama's lies?
You posted a video made by a funny man, I didn't watch it.
He makes fun of everyone, especially Republicans. He is pretty funny though.
You don't have to agree with him, but I'm sure you will enjoy the humor.
"This goes beyond what Mark Twain called "damned lies".
Especially the way liberal mutts interpret them.
No, government had nothing to do with current circumstances. More government is always better...
Thoughtless comment by him.
Thoughtless and heartless. Typical of the republicans who serve only the 1%.
Typical of the republicans who serve only the 1%.
Profound, hard to sound the depths of that statement.
That damn Liberal sack of schill Jon Stewart.
Did he manage to bitch about any of Obama's lies?
Yes, all of them. There have been numerous references to "You can keep your health plan if you like it.".
You posted a video made by a funny man, I didn't watch it.
And that is your problem. You will never learn anything unless you are willing to hear opposing positions.
And the reason you didn't watch it had nothing to do with Jon Stewart being a "funny man". The real reason you watched it is that you know there will be no counter-argument you could make against his point. You know you'll lose the battle, so you flee and then to cover your cowardliness, you claim to have left because the opposition is so weak it requires no fight. That is disingenuous.
What you should do is simply admit that Jon Stewart is right about this specific thing, that Paul Ryan twisted a real life story to mean the exact opposite of what it really means. Whether or not you agree with Stewart's other positions is irrelevant.
Hell, even I will give kudos to a republican when he does something right. The last time that happened was when Paul Ryan filibustered to make a point that Obama's use of drones is unethical, Unconstitutional, and Unamerican. Before that, we might have to go back to Ike.
Jon Stewart from what i hear uses disingenuous tactics.
Peter Schiff indicated that they interviewed him for over 4 hours to get a few minutes of out of context answers. Why anyone would go on his show is beyond me...
Jon Stewart from what i hear uses disingenuous tactics.
You don't have to hear that, you can just watch the show and get that idea. Colbert got his start by doing these interviews where he would inject and distort answers and ask loaded questions.
Now you could tell by the politicians expression and answers. That there must have been a lot of serious Q&A going on before being blind sided by Colbert's bullshit. Steve would then play it off, or you could tell that the footage is spliced from sporatic silly outbursts and questioning, in between probably legitimate questions. The legitimate interview was cut out, and what ended up in the TDS segment was the bullshit that the interviewee was puzzled by. That cheap crap gave Steve his own show.
Russia probably should have used comedians for their Propaganda ministries instead of fear. The USSR probably would have never fell.
That cheap crap gave Steve his own show.
He learned from Stewart so I guess it stands to reason. Not that the Rs don't pull the same thing. But I think Paul Ryan is ingenuous. Why because I have a well tuned bullshit meter, which is why it is so painful to watch O or his ilk speak.
***
More recently, however, Ryan distanced himself from Rand, whose atheism is something of a philosophical wedge issue on the right, dividing religious conservatives from free-market libertarians. This year, with his political profile rising, Ryan stressed not only that he had differences with Rand’s atheism—a point he had made as far back as 2003—but went so far as to denounce her whole system of beliefs, describing his early attraction to her writing as little more than a youthful dalliance. He admitted that he had “enjoyed her novels,†but, as Mak notes, he stressed that, “I reject her philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas.â€"
Jon Stewart from what i hear uses disingenuous tactics.
Peter Schiff indicated that they interviewed him for over 4 hours to get a few minutes of out of context answers. Why anyone would go on his show is beyond me...
The Daily Show publishes the full interview on their website for anything that runs overtime. They even tell the audience whenever an interview could not be fit in the ten minutes allotted for it. And in the case where there is an edit point, they let the viewer know an edit point occurred with a video transition graphic. Thus there is no way for the words to be taken out of context.
Also, the above CPAC clip was not edited. It is a continuous clip of Paul Ryan's statements. And it is indisputable that Paul Ryan did completely inverted the meaning of that story.
And if you have any doubts whatsoever, buy and read the book itself, The Invisible Thread, which you can get from Amazon by clicking that link you just read.
I mean, can I make it any easier to confirm that Paul Ryan is a lying sack of shit?
More recently, however, Ryan distanced himself from Rand, whose atheism is something of a philosophical wedge issue on the right, dividing religious conservatives from free-market libertarians.
The only part conservative like about Ayn Rand is the ruthless, fuck everybody else, #1 comes first. That part comes from capitalism, not atheism.
Dan, is this in Thursday's episode? I have it on DVR but haven't watched it...so I want to wait to watch the whole episode if it is.
I like how Mr. Path to Prosperity and Ayn Rand have been defended strongly on this thread, and in their place, two comedians have been attacked instead. Lame. But I guess you asked for it with the thread title...haha
being blind sided by Colbert's bullshit. Steve would then play it off, or you could tell that the footage is spliced from sporatic silly outbursts and questioning, in between probably legitimate questions. The legitimate interview was cut out
Nobody in their right mind gets interviewed for these shows expecting legit footage to air; these shows if you hadn't noticed are on "comedy" central.
Comedy, noun: professional entertainment consisting of jokes and satirical sketches, intended to make an audience laugh.
If you take comedy too seriously, you are giving it undue respect.
Dan, is this in Thursday's episode?
It's from March 10th. You can watch the whole episode online at The Daily Show's website. You can watch any episode online at that website.
If you take comedy too seriously, you are giving it undue respect.
Although it is a comedy show, the facts it presents are correct.
If you would like independent confirmation, it is trivial to find it with a Google search.

The argument that The Daily Show is a comedy show therefore we should ignore everything on it simply does not hold water. Throughout history comedy has been used as a means to disperse truth when it has not been possible to by other means.
Today it takes little effort to confirm or discredit a fact. So there is no reason not to listen to The Daily Show. Whenever you have any doubt, simply use Google to check the fact in question. To this date, no one has ever caught The Daily Show in a lie, which is more than you can say about most popular news sources.
It's from March 10th.
I remember this one now; it was a good one.
The argument that The Daily Show is a comedy show therefore we should ignore everything on it simply does not hold water.
I did not say this, but if you're responding to others, I agree.
My comments were responding to people (rightly) accusing the 2 shows of splicing interview footage (in their special segments not the in-person interviews). It's blatantly obvious from the video that they splice, but whatever, it's funny. And they generally do discuss topics that expose the right overwhelmingly that they don't have to splice much (if at all) to make a legit point. Case in point: your google search had 30,000,000 hits.
But it is comedy. Painful to watch sometimes because there is always truth in humor (sometimes too much). But both hosts will acknowledge that it's comedy.
The Daily Show publishes the full interview on their website for anything that runs overtime. They even tell the audience whenever an interview could not be fit in the ten minutes allotted for it. And in the case where there is an edit point, they let the viewer know an edit point occurred with a video transition graphic. Thus there is no way for the words to be taken out of context.
Not according to Peter Schiff, as I stated before.
Also, the above CPAC clip was not edited. It is a continuous clip of Paul Ryan's statements. And it is indisputable that Paul Ryan did completely inverted the meaning of that story.
I don't have a problem with what he said, so what. Is it in the same league with "I never sex with Monica"?
The intent of the story suits me fine.
I mean, can I make it any easier to confirm that Paul Ryan is a lying sack of shit?
As usual you "have proved" nothing.
The kid wants a brown paper bag lunch so that when he's finished, he can fill it with dog poo and set on fire in front of the teacher's lounge and watch them stomping it out.
Maybe when the Republican party has a major enema and loses it's flat earth, evolution hating, fundamentalist mondo bizarros, it might actually start to resemble a proper conservative group.
The kid wants a brown paper bag lunch so that when he's finished, he can fill it with dog poo and set on fire in front of the teacher's lounge and watch them stomping it out.
Maybe when the Republican party has a major enema and loses it's flat earth, evolution hating, fundamentalist mondo bizarros, it might actually start to resemble a proper conservative group.
I don't disagree, but conflating subjects into sound bytes, does no good.
If you really believe that, then what's the problem.
Obama has rammed much bigger Things up more personal and tight spaces?
Peter Schiff is an idiot whose only advocates are a busted clock and a mutt like you.
It takes one to know one...
Trickle down never existed, it are not a real idea.sbh says
suppressing their rights to vote.
Where did you get that idea?
That is to say, he's nothing new to the GOP or conservatism.
Yea he is, he is the first one that is a CPA and is talking about budgets, which is new. Certainly compared to any democrat smegma
He's never held a job in the real world in his life. He's the epitome of hypocrisy. Maybe that's why you like him, nae?
Fetch some facts. Otherwise you are what you appear to be.
I'll paraphrase wikipedia: he worked at Micky Ds before he took SS survivor benefits at age 16-18.
Does the WIKI say why he got those benefits?sbh says
FUCKING TAKER LEECH!
COERCIVE FASCIST!
Does the WIKI actually say those things are you confusing opinion with fact again?
He has voted for (if not sponsored) bills to establish personhood status for fetuses, a platform used to force transvaginal ultrasound by unwilling Doctors on pregnant women.
So pro choice is ok but not right to life? Ever see a picture of a 3rd trimester fetus? Seems like someone who professes "caring", would care about a 3rd trimester fetus?
Does the WIKI say why he got those benefits?
Does it matter? His dad died. So he has a story. Does that not make him a leech? White males with stories are not leeches but black women are. I understand. Ryan is the epitome of Republican hypocrisy. Not only as a kid but as an adult. Like every other 'small government Republican', he continues to suck the teet of the taxpayer. But somehow it's ok. I hope his CPA keeps him in "important" tax-payer funded positions so that he can keep GOP hypocrisy center stage.
I'll paraphrase wikipedia: he worked at Micky Ds before he took SS survivor benefits at age 16-18. FUCKING TAKER LEECH!
Getting something back for the 12.4% of his parents' salary which went into Social Security isn't leeching, although I expect he'd have been MUCH better off if the same money had been used for private investments and life insurance
I spend 1.27% of my wages subject to Social Security on a life insurance policy which pays out 4.6X.
Does it matter? His dad died
You don't think it does?JH says
Does that not make him a leech?
A teenager? No
Not only as a kid but as an adult. Like every other 'small government Republican'
Are you too confusing opinion with fact?
I hope his CPA keeps him in "important" tax-payer funded positions so that he can keep GOP hypocrisy center stage.
Granted the Republicans spend as much as the Democrats, but at least he is pushing the budget issue. Obama has a terrible record on budgets.
Death benefits. FUCKING TAKER! SS is predicated on coercion and it's evil. He has no excuse.
You don't see any difference? That qualifies as stupid.
The right to abortion is the same as the right to car detailing.
What about the right, of a 3rd trimester fetus, to live?
Everything else is just conjecture or number or graphs or aggregation by mutts.
Spoken like a mutt, aggregation of what?
But it is comedy. Painful to watch sometimes because there is always truth in humor (sometimes too much).
Comedy is tragedy plus distance.
Humor and gravitas are not mutually exclusive.
Of course no one should use The Daily Show as their only source of news. No one should use anything as their only source of news. But Daily Show, NPR, and PBS make a fine combination.
Comedy is tragedy plus distance.
Comedy, by definition, is pointing out things that don't make sense. IOW things that are not logical. Entertainment like Stewart's show does not create knowledge, some of the mutts have a hard time making that distinction.
I don't have a problem with what he said, so what. Is it in the same league with "I never sex with Monica"?
Bill Clinton did not lie. When asked if he had sexual relations, a euphemism for sexual intercourse, with Monica he rightly answered no. A person on trial is under no obligations to volunteer additional information to his prosecutors, especially ones with ill intent. The bottom line is that the Republicans fucked up, not Bill.
Furthermore, Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office did not negatively affect your life at all. George Bush lying about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction and ties to 9/11 cost millions of lives and destroyed America's credibility and global good will, which is why we had to sit by as Syria and Crimea both went to hell. Bush's lies harmed America's national security. Clinton's refrain from giving Republicans rope to hang him with did not harm America at all.
Also, all the republicans attacking Clinton for having an affair were hypocritically having affairs themselves that went much farther. Newt Gingrich was fucking another woman while his wife was in the hospital with cancer. That's fucking low. Republicans have no moral high ground when it comes to sex scandals.
I mean, can I make it any easier to confirm that Paul Ryan is a lying sack of shit?
As usual you "have proved" nothing.
The facts I presented are:
1. Paul Ryan presented a story about a boy who was receiving food stamps but didn't want them.
2. The story was taken from a book called The Invisible Thread.
3. In the real story, the real boy was really asking for a brown bag because he didn't want the stigma of everyone knowing he was on food stamps.
4. The real man that boy grow into advocates food stamps usage to combat poverty.
How exactly did I fail to prove that Paul Ryan completely misrepresented the story and twisted its moral into the exact opposite of what it is? Please elaborate.
Simply asserting that someone has proved nothing proves nothing. That assertion is becoming the go-to cop-out for conservatives on this site. In the face of indisputable evidence, just say "ah, that proves nothing" and hope enough idiots believe you.
Paul Ryan is nothing but a trickle downer who wants small government to shove ultrasound wands into the vaginas of American women after suppressing their rights to vote. That is to say, he's nothing new to the GOP or conservatism.
I'm beginning to think that GOP stands for Gross Old Perverts.
You're trying to split hairs in order to defend Ryan? You're advocating the coercion and theft and slavery of government in order to prop up Ryan? Social security is evil, and only fascist sheep takers are willing to gobble up the fruits of honest labor. You're shameful. You're a communist.
An underage kid who's father paid into those benefits. Bullshit
You're willing to take a big government position, advocating intrusion into both the liberty and body cavity in order to defend Ryan?
You are not willing to look at both sides
Are you too confusing opinion with fact?
Yes, I am confusing Republican opinion that tax-funded activities are a drag on our economy and free American lifestyle with the lifestyles of those who promote such 'freedom' values: paid government employees enjoying government sponsored health care and retirements. Paul Ryan has been one all his life. His only foray into the private sector was college, which he paid for from his social security survivor benefits.
Once he stops using my tax dollars to spew his bullshit values around the country, I'll leave him alone.
I'm beginning to think that GOP stands for Gross Old Perverts.
Once the Old retire and spend down social security and medicare to zero, they will proclaim 'mission accomplished' and fall into the ground, successfully removing government intervention from 'merica.
Comedy, by definition, is pointing out things that don't make sense.
Comedy often point out things are painfully obvious and make complete sense. Your premise is wrong.
Entertainment like Stewart's show does not create knowledge
The Daily Show presents the utter hypocrisy of politicians on both sides. However, Republicans are far worse than Democrats, and their hypocrisy is so much more abundant. This is why conservative hate The Daily Show. It shines a spotlight on the batshit crazy and the hypocrisy of the Republican party and Jon Stewart can tear about the bullshit talking points with such clarity and simplicity that the Republicans can't lie their way out of guilt.
And that is exactly why conservatives loathe The Daily Show. The clip in the original post is a perfect example. All the right-wing nut jobs on this site are attacking The Daily Show, but not saying anything about the actual clip presented. It's easy to talk generic shit that doesn't apply and hope it sticks. It's a lot harder to site specifics, isn't it?
The video clip in the original post is indisputable and easy to confirm. You can't attack that, so try flinging irrelevant and false attacks at the t.v. show in general and hope people are dumb enough to believe your attacks and conclude that they should ignore the clip because of them, neither of which any logical person would do.
Let's count the logical fallacies.
1. Red Herring
2. Appeal to Ridicule
3. Guilt By Association
4. Poisoning the Well
5. Division
Wow, you've really racked up those fallacies.
Bill Clinton did not lie. When asked if he had sexual relations, a euphemism for sexual intercourse, with Monica he rightly answered no. A person on trial is under no obligations to volunteer additional information to his prosecutors, especially ones with ill intent. The bottom line is that the Republicans fucked up, not Bill.
Yes truly, what integrity.
Furthermore, Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office did not negatively affect your life at all.
Yup if he is doing that in the white house what else has he done?
The point is what Ryan said is not in the same universe as what Clinton did.
The facts I presented are:
1. Paul Ryan presented a story about a boy who was receiving food stamps but didn't want them.
2. The story was taken from a book called The Invisible Thread.
3. In the real story, the real boy was really asking for a brown bag because he didn't want the stigma of everyone knowing he was on food stamps.
If you say so, but yes truly ghastly an embellished story, so fucking what.
4. The real man that boy grow into advocates food stamps usage to combat poverty.
So you conflate what this boy did at a latter date as Ryan's responsibility. Yea that makes sense...
That assertion is becoming the go-to cop-out for conservatives on this site. In the face of indisputable evidence, just say "ah, that proves nothing" and hope enough idiots believe you.
Funny stuff I don't think have ever lost an argument with you.
Once the Old retire and spend down social security and medicare to zero, they will proclaim 'mission accomplished' and fall into the ground, successfully removing government intervention from 'merica.
Says the mutt who is on his 3rd avatar.
The Daily Show presents the utter hypocrisy of politicians on both sides. However, Republicans are far worse than Democrats, and their hypocrisy is so much more abundant. This is why conservative hate The Daily Show. It shines a spotlight on the batshit crazy and the hypocrisy of the Republican party and Jon Stewart can tear about the bullshit talking points with such clarity and simplicity that the Republicans can't lie their way out of guilt.
100% opining
1. Red Herring
Name it.
Appeal to Ridicule
Name it.
Guilt By Association
Indicate the integrity or lack of...
Poisoning the Well
Division
Name em.
Comments 1 - 40 of 70 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/2y4kbt/the-amazing-base---power-of-love
This goes beyond what Mark Twain called "damned lies".