Daily Show on Republican hypocrisy

Discuss

115 Responses to “Daily Show on Republican hypocrisy”

  1. bardfinn says:

    I’m cashing in all my karma points.

    VOTE

    OBAMA

    BY A LANDSLIDE.

    It’s pretty funny to watch the GOP machine be hypocritical and unironically self-negating.

    Giving them blogshare, mindshare, timeshare, etcetera – doesn’t help defeat them and can only help them:

    even bad publicity is still publicity.

    To the audience:

    Who do you want to see in the PotUSA office come November?

    Well, that’s who you need to be talking about.

  2. Troy says:

    Exactly when did these folks talk about Chelsea and or Hillary or Bill’s parenting skills or Algores’s drug abusing son? John Stewart is a shill. Too bad because at times he’s high-larious.

  3. pauldrye says:

    I don’t mean to be a complainer…OK, yes I do: this particular link to the video is geo-locked, and to the United States only as far as I can tell (Canada’s dead to it, in any case).

    If it were the only source of the funny, I could understand, but with nothing more than the title I found what I think is the same video on YouTube in less than ten seconds:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1A0ts88LXE

    Please, a little effort on behalf of the rest of the world?

  4. Phikus says:

    Teresa: If the goals of the source of an argument and context have nothing to do with it, why is this post titled: “Daily Show on Republican hypocrisy” and what is the point of it?

    If McCain, for instance, kisses a supporter’s baby, it is not in a vacuum. Why is this not a good thing? He is sharing love for an infant, after all.

    It is not a good thing because his motives, as defined by the stated goals of the source (a politician) and context (campaigning for himself or his party, and having a record of doing little for children once they are born) are not really of love but of self-aggrandizement. It is hypocrisy precisely because he is doing one thing while attempting to appear in another light entirely, in this hypothetical instance. If all arguments are to be valued solely on their own merit then there is no such thing as hypocrisy.

    I though that was the point of sharing this post. To watch how noted Republicans are reversing their previous stances to fit whomever they are trying to trash or support, based on the target’s affiliations.

    As for Crizzel: I wish you would so I wouldn’t have to.

  5. thisaintnopicnic says:

    I live in England, and have been watching The Daily Show and Colbert Report on their official sites for some time, using the excellent full episode player. Today, however, the site tells me the full episode player is no longer available to those in Great Britain. Anyone know why?

  6. slgalt says:

    1. Jon Stewart keeps me sane.

    2. Corporate News has the memory of a goldfish – The Daily Show people, like some of us, actually remember more than a few weeks ago.

    3. What is most horrifying is that these specific Republicans are PAID by the media stations to give political “analysis.”

  7. minTphresh says:

    troy, clinton’s parenting skills would be 1992 and 1996, al’s son would be around 2000. i hope that helps!

  8. Phikus says:

    Teresa: I would like to add that I love you.

  9. maturin says:

    what an excellent clip…..this is the type of blatant cynicism and hypocrisy that needs our unwavering attention. Too bad the “real” news is not only as diligent as the Daily Show…..the “real” news is the actual source of the examples.

  10. minTphresh says:

    jon stewat is one of the only ones on the ‘telly’ with the cajones to speek truth to power, regardless of political affiliation! megakudos!

  11. martha_macarthur says:

    I <3 JS 4-eva!

  12. cinemajay says:

    If I see John Stewart walking around St. Paul, I’m giving him a great big hug.

  13. Nick Mathewson says:

    Troy @48:

    Exactly when did these folks talk about Chelsea and or Hillary or Bill’s parenting skills or Algores’s drug abusing son?

    Do you really want to bring up Chelsea? I’m not personally aware of any mean thing that Dick Morris or Karl Rove said about Chelsea. But there is McCain’s “high-larious” joke about Chelsea’s appearance and parentage from a Republican fund-raiser in 1998. You can find it if you Google.

  14. Frank_in_Virginia says:

    I got to thinking last night about the statement that Gov. Palin is qualified because she is close to Russia.

    Well, can’t see how distance has anything to do with it, but “closer” is technically correct:

    Distance
    Juneau, Alaska to Moscow, Russia – 4,542 miles
    Phoenix, Arizona to Moscow, Russia – 6,022 miles
    Springfield, Illinois to Moscow, Russia – 5,152 miles
    Dover, Delaware to Moscow, Russia – 4,805 miles

    She has a good 263 mile advantage over Sen. Biden.

  15. AGF says:

    Wow.
    and thanks for the youtube link.

  16. Puppethead says:

    The election years are so good to the Daily Show.

  17. Frank_in_Virginia says:

    I wonder if Jon Stewart is on the No Fly List?

  18. Ugly Canuck says:

    Agree with the above poster, give them no mindshare at all. “resist not evil”, just ignore it completely….if it isn’t real evil it will go away…and sometimes if it is evil it will do so too, for evil is powerless of itself, it only works by misguiding the innocent.
    Ignore the Republicans and everything they say. Just turn away in silence…They are not worth your time much less the trust to handle the tax receipts responsibly…in fact they have not been responsive to any criticism at all have they? How “responsible” is that?
    Screw them, and never let us speak of them again…like your Mass Media treats the people living in Iraq, say…

  19. Christovir says:

    Geolocking is pretty shitty.

    I love John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but I really wish they didn’t work for Viacom.

  20. crizzel says:

    PHKS@ 90

    Hy thnks fr th wrm wlcm t cmmnts sctn.

    Y sm t b bt f th rctnry typ…
    bt y ls mst b prtty frkn brllnt cs hd n d ws ndctng th rdrs hr nd mkng ll th ssmptns y pnt t. Cs thght ws xprssng dsppntmnt n th mrcn pltcl s whl. Brv ndd. Bt d blv tht cld hv flld my frst pst wth mch mr flr. cld hv rd smn ls’s pst thn cld hv ylld t thm lk schzfrntc sht thrwng mnky fr wht thnk h thnks bt ddn’t sy.

    S ‘m nt gng t rg wth y nymr…. t’s nt bcs dslk rgng. t’s cs thnk yr n dt… nd rgng wth y wld b brng. Bt snc y jst mk p thngs sy n yr hd, fl fr t kp rgng wth yrslf.

  21. 5000! says:

    Exactly when did these folks talk about Chelsea and or Hillary or Bill’s parenting skills or Algores’s drug abusing son? John Stewart is a shill. Too bad because at times he’s high-larious.

    1. John Stewart didn’t take over The Daily Show until 1999, and at the time it wasn’t focused on politics.
    2. Exactly what are you trying to contrast with? When did The Daily Show talk about anybody’s parenting skills or children? And if you’re talking about politicos beyond The Daily Show there were plenty of mean things said about Chelsea Clinton. Here’s McCain on Chelsea in 1998:

    Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.

    And Rush Limbaugh on Chelsea in 1992:

    Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?

    At which point he points to a video monitor showing a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Making it out as if Democratic partisans are the primary perpetrators of personal attacks against candidates is naive at best.

  22. Phikus says:

    TEAPOT7@94: I didn’t know you had been appointed to make policy here. Oh wait. You appointed yourself! Please see the moderation thread for the rules of “contributing to discussion” here and have a nice day.

  23. nirst says:

    Those in the Uk (like me who suddenly can’t watch full episodes online – I use Hotspot Shield. It worked a dream yesterday and I was able to watch the Daily Show no problem.

  24. Phikus says:

    GREEBO@89: Put it in the moderation thread. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion. You’ve just proven you were justly disemvowelled with your irrelevance. You’re not clever, you’re just annoying.

    CRIZZEL@86: When the Dems make such blatant hypocritical statements, I would expect them to be called on it too. Your assumption that readers here will look the other way when / if Dems do the same is idiotic and insulting. Bravo! Your fist post here could not be filled with more failure.

  25. Mojave says:

    I saw the most awesome rebuttal to that chick from Alaska….

    “Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

  26. Takuan says:

    I can’t read any of that, can you?

  27. Rindan says:

    While I appreciate the sentiment expressed and find the general mode of character assassination attack politics to be nauseating, people need to take a big step back when it comes to hypocrisy. All too often hypocrisy is used as a catch all defense for any evil committed in the world. The idea is that if you can show that the accuser of some moral injustice has at one point or another committed that same injustice to a greater or lesser extent, they are effectivly shut down and banned from speaking out on moral ills.

    What people need to realize is that being a hypocrite doesn’t invalidate an argument. It might mean that the hypocrite in question might not be the most personally upstanding citizen, but it isn’t an invalidation of the argument.

    I guess my point is that we shouldn’t use hypocrisy as an argument for justifying bad behavior. You can be both a hypocrite AND right.

  28. xopl says:

    If the main stream media covered these “flip flops” the presidential race would be over. The only reason it is a “close” race is because the media is making it a close race, because as long as it is a close race then the candidates have to buy more ad space and the networks can make more money. There’s no profit in a landslide presidential victory.

    Protest the media, not the war. Even if we end the war we will have done nothing to prevent the next one.

  29. Phikus says:

    Did you see Chelsea at the DNC? I think she’s pretty hot. This is further evidence that they are not only mean-spirited hypocrites, but blind.

  30. pduggie says:

    Its payback hypocrisy.

    Rep: “Man I got slammed when I said mean stuff about Hillary”

    Dem: “mean stuff about Palin”

    Rep: “You’re so mean!”

    Dem: “How can you slam me, for meanness, hypocrite”?

    Rep: “You told me I was bad then, so you’re a hypocrite too”

    I hate all politics. It just causes fights.

  31. Grim Beefer says:

    @ #12 RINDAN

    “The idea is that if you can show that the accuser of some moral injustice has at one point or another committed that same injustice to a greater or lesser extent, they are effectivly shut down and banned from speaking out on moral ills.”

    But do you think that’s what happening here? What you’re saying would be relevant if political candidates were actually engaged in abstract discussions of political philosophy and ethics, but this is not how the real world works. When a politician says anything, we must learn to decode the agenda implicit in their statements. In this case, hypocrisy is being used to expose that agenda. It’s not that we should weigh the strengths and weaknesses of statement A or statement B; it’s that we should understand that politicians will “believe” anything, within certain boundaries, if it furthers their power accumulation. Nothing illustrates that point better than unjustified contradictory positions.

  32. the_coffeegirl says:

    Feels to me like we are heading toward a civil war because we can’t seem to have civil debate. People have closed their minds, they don’t see the other side, its my way or the highway. Since Dole ran for president (and thankfully was defeated), I’ve thought of moving to Canada if the wrong guy wins. Unfortunately, I don’t think they’d let me stay and work, so its really not financially feasible unless I win the lottery sometime soon. Its pretty sad when I’d rather have Bob Dole be the president than the current Republican choices – he seems moderate and sane by contrast.
    Maybe I am sexist for thinking that Sarah Palin isn’t a great manager since she can’t manange her family. I don’t think so. And I don’t attack her child – she did what 17 year olds often do, she just got caught and then thrown to the wolves by her mother, in an attempt to cover her own ass. I think that it shows a huge character flaw in the parent – she rallys against comprehensive sex ed in schools and is against abortion in the extreme, but she apparently didn’t give her own child the tools to make an intelligent adult decision. And then she says she supports the childs decision to keep the baby, but she doesn’t think that choice should be offered to other people. So what I get from that is that Bristol had no choice.
    I watched Sarah Palin’s speech online yesterday. I was impressed that she had the nerve to stand in front of the whole convention and deliver a speech, and look so comfortable, and (I thought) smug. I wasn’t impressed by her wit as I knew it was written for her by the speechwriters for the President that her campaign is trying to say they are different from.
    If they are using the same talking points, same writers, same policies on family planning and healthcare… how are they different?

  33. Takuan says:

    think of it as a pageant

  34. pduggie says:

    Jesus was not a community organizer.

    And now he’s King of Kings, anyway.

  35. Lauren O says:

    Thank you for this. I see the feminist blogosphere standing up for Palin against sexist attacks (not against actual political attacks, obviously), and I see the lack of hypocrisy in the movements and belief systems I adhere to. Then I look over at the Republicans and see…this stuff. Performing a complete 180-degree turn on every issue for the sole purpose of political expediency is funny to watch. It would be funnier if it weren’t such a hallmark of the politics running the United States. Liberals screw up, too, but they are far less likely to pull shit like this at every opportunity.

  36. Daemon says:

    Politians? Hypocrits? I’m shocked. Simply shocked.

  37. teapot7 says:

    Phikus at #90 writes:

    > GREEBO@89: Put it in the moderation thread. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

    Dissagree – the right spot to complain about inappropriate moderation is the spot where it’s happening.

    > You’re not clever, you’re just annoying.

    Actually I thought it was rather typographically pleasant.

  38. Scary_UK says:

    I’ve never had a problem watching clips on Comedy Central’s site here in the UK, this one works for me too. I suspect the Youtube clip will get pulled eventually unfortunately

    The archiving and research abilities of TDS frequently amaze me.

  39. artbot says:

    While I tentatively support Obama, I have never lost faith in the ability of the Dems to completely drop the ball and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    And don’t expect the right-wing attack machine to rest if Obama [I]does[/I] win. There will be no end to their dirty politics, regardless.

  40. ck says:

    The republican machine’s wheels are falling off exposing the smoke and mirrors.

  41. greebo says:

    Teresa, I just realized you disemsymboled me too. Bravo – that must have taken some effort. You’ve just lost another fan of the site.

    foo |_| cake.

  42. Takuan says:

    take it to the moderation thread, that is why we have it

  43. greebo says:

    Teresa: okay, I was asking for the knuckle-rapping. But did I get disemvowelled or not? I forgot to leave a test-vowel in my post so I could check.

    To answer your two questions:
    (1) I’m only once-disemvowelled (or possibly twice) so I wouldn’t know. But I resorted to an accusation of hypocracy purely for comic effect, in a desperate attempt to claim on-threadness. I guess humour doesn’t work so well on these here interwebs.

    (2) I spell words however I want to. I was brought up in England, where I was indoctrinated with proper British spelling. Then I lived in the US, where I was tortured and forceably brainwashed into using American spelling. When I finally observed myself using “leverage” as a verb I knew it was time to escape. I made it to Canada, a paradise where they choose whichever spelling they like, and occasionally make some up just for the fun of it. (“Chequing”, anyone?). I like Canada best. Sorry, what was the question again?

  44. loraksus says:

    Fucking Fail. Comedy Central blocks views from Canada now. They didn’t last week.

  45. IWood says:

    #12:

    True and important to note. The evolution of the term “hypocrisy” is interesting, as well…it’s an old word. Although derived originally from the Ionic Greek hupokrisis, meaning simply a “reply or answer,” it is the the later Attic Greek usage that I find most provocative. In Attic, hupokrisis primarily indicated the playing of a part, as on a stage, or, literally, an “outward showing;” it was also used to indicate an orator’s “delivery.” It wasn’t until the New Testament, written in Koine Greek, that the word was metaphorically used in its modern derogatory sense (as in Matthew 23:28).

    It’s interesting to me that this word has its roots in performance, for so much of our modern information culture is bound up in stagecraft and the manipulation of perception. A further consequence of that information culture–especially for public personae–is that past pronouncements and activities can and often do become part of the overall searchable soup of facts and factoids. This means that it is becoming easier and easier for people to compare today’s performance with yesterday’s, and to make public accusations of hypocrisy in its modern sense of the concealment of one’s real character, disposition, or motives and the false appearance of virtue.

    But all politicians, Republican or otherwise, are orators, delivering rhetoric and playing a part. It’s an act. So, in the Attic sense, they’re all hypocrites. The irony for the family-values crowd is that the modern sense of hypocrisy came to the fore in…the New Testament.

    Anyway. There’s some etymology for you, I guess.

  46. tx_ROOK says:

    Palin represents the GOP’s version of Obama this time around. Youth, represents a vocal demographic, stands for party platform beliefs… Palin is the Republican Obama, that is why she is on the ticket.

    Palin is, however, the exact opposite of Obama as far as the Constitution and ‘Social Issues’ are concerned. One of her first stops when she became mayor of Wasilla (Which is somewhere closer to the 4th or 5th largest Alaskan city, I’m a Fairbanksan) was the local library where she inquired how to go about banning books. The appalled librarian who refused to help her was then attacked by Palin with a charge of “Refusing to comply with the Mayor.”

    The GOP also probably encouraged as young a candidate as they could find simply to address issues of McCain’s health and age (“Well at least Palin won’t foreseeably die in the next 8 years…”).

    The only positive thing, in my mind, Palin has going for her is her first couple of months as Governor she hit the ground running on Political Reform. Immediately going after Alaskan politicians on both sides of the aisle for their own issues of corruption and scandal.

    Also, to add, Newt Gingrinch was quoted in his Daily Show interview saying, “if this campaign is about politics as usual, then the fact is that Obama and Biden are going to win.”

  47. Peterus says:

    “dishing out the same garbage”
    Well if that’s garbage – than this is OUTRAGE TWICE, not once, not by one side.
    Both left and right guilty on two different cases, so Republican hypocrisy – 1, garbage on Palin by Dems – 2.

    f ws S ctzn ‘d vt McCn. Nt bcs h’s s grt, bt bcs h’s lssr f tw vls. bm s n xtrm sclst nd tht s nd f dsscsn fr m.

  48. Tavie says:

    More on Obama’s economic plan here, if anyone wants to get a little more informed. (It was the cover story of the Sunday NYT magazine a couple weeks ago.)

  49. Talia says:

    #20 if you think McCain is the lesser of two evils, you clearly haven’t been paying attention. The last 8 years have been extremely damaging to the country in every way, and McCain & company are more of the same.

    But not being a US citizen I can’t blame you, I wouldn’t want to pay attention to our messy politics if I didn’t have to either.

  50. Mojave says:

    Peterus I think I speak for the majority of BoingBoing when I say we are glad you CANNOT VOTE. Palin is unbelievably unqualified to have her finger on the button.

  51. Keeper of the Lantern says:

    #20: “Obama is an extreme socialist and that is end of disscusion for me.”

    Are you high? Not just a socialist, but an EXTREME socialist, no less. Look, Obama is to the right of practically any politician in Europe.

    Wait, you’re not even thinking about this, are you. Once your brain hits the word “socialist” it doesn’t even bother trying to define what about socialism is good or bad. For instance, are you aware that the US and Israel are the only countries in the developed world without universal health care access? And yet, this is no way prevents private-sector doctors from operating. Is that socialist? If so, no one who lives under it wants US-style health care.

    If McCain wins the US deserves what it gets: An Invasian of Iran (which will make Iraq look like a cakewalk), a collapsed dollar, the death of the constitution and plenty more torture.

  52. Xopher says:

    TNH 101: So ask yourself: is this a fight you want to start?

    PDuggie, I’d just like to translate that for you: “So ask yourself: Do I feel lucky?”

    Godzilla @82, we don’t need a revolution. The Constitution we have is fine as is. What we need is to have it back in force.

    I’m not Godzilla, but I very much fear that nothing short of a revolution will PUT the Constitution back in force. And since we’re unlikely to have a revolution…but that way lies despair, and I promised myself I wouldn’t.

    First, why is it that the kind of people whose comments get disemvowelled or deleted so frequently use “hypocrite” as their all-purpose rejoinder?

    I love the artful syntactic ambiguity here! Both meanings are equally valid, of course, but most people will only get one.

  53. bardfinn says:

    XOPL:

    You /are/ the media.

    ARTBOT: Then do not let them. I’m not a Democrat – but I am registered as a Democrat. I refuse to let anyone sabotage the effort to exclude the GOP from power this November.

    It’s a zero-sum game, and there is a clear preferred choice – do everything YOU can to let people know to

    VOTE

    OBAMA BY A LANDSLIDE

  54. Matt Sanderson says:

    #15
    Care to elaborate on that, or shall we just take your statements unquestioningly as gospel? (SEE WUT I DID THUR?) Jesus may have been more than a community organizer, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a community organizer. He helped bring people together, people who were persecuted and downtrodden. He gave them something to believe in and a purpose, he gave them hope, in the face of an oppressive, corrupt government. That’s what it describes in the Bible. Sounds, at the very least, like a community organizer, to me.

    Republicans have a lot to learn from both Jesus and, quite frankly, Democrats. And I say that as an evangelical Christian.

  55. greebo says:

    Hypocrite! If you can’t read it, how can you claim to know what thread it belongs in?
    :-) :-) :-)

    How shall we decide which forms of hypocracy are off-topic for this thread?

  56. bardfinn says:

    PETERUS:

    Yeaaaah, I’m doubting that you’d know an extreme socialist if you saw one.

    Obama is not socialist.

  57. Takuan says:

    Palin is as qualified as Bush was. Identically I’d say.

  58. Takuan says:

    Sounds like Gilgamesh to me.

  59. Ugly Canuck says:

    Historically the opposition party has a better chance of winning on a platform opposing the incumbent’s policies, rather than the incumbents’ party.

  60. Takuan says:

    don’t steal Teapot’s message.

    I would say all forms of “rule by injection” are off topic here.

  61. Phikus says:

    CK@18: Indeed.

    RINDAN@12: “What people need to realize is that being a hypocrite doesn’t invalidate an argument. It might mean that the hypocrite in question might not be the most personally upstanding citizen, but it isn’t an invalidation of the argument.”

    Yes, it does. / Yes it is. If your ideology is so flimsy that you change it in every instance to suit your agenda, then it is not an ideology: You are simply justifying what you want to do in any way you can. People who use seemingly good arguments to suit their goals whenever convenient are simply being manipulative bastards.

    “I guess my point is that we shouldn’t use hypocrisy as an argument for justifying bad behavior. You can be both a hypocrite AND right.”

    No, you can’t, for the above mentioned reason (they aren’t right, they are just being a manipulative bastard.) You have to take the goals and context into account in deciphering any statement, especially political ones.

    There is no justification for bad behavior. (I believe in peaceful protest, for instance, exclusively.) Doing good things for bad reasons is still wrong, because it may have a hidden agenda that does greater harm in the end. Doing bad things for good reasons is equally wrong, because in the trade off you become what you resist. You’ve heard the expression: Actions speak louder than words. This is why this is true. The ends never justify the means.

  62. Digital Artz says:

    Our politics have become a comedy here with
    no one talking about how on 9-11-01 when I
    witnessed the attack here in NYC the whole
    world was mostly with us in sympathy as a country.
    Our President of the last 8 years has truly undone
    that love for the USA.
    I also wish to say that as a senior citizen( as
    one gets older ),one becomes a socialist more or
    less as the ambition of youth leaves and one
    wishes for rest and peace and Yup! better
    health care,nothing of which I once had to
    think about for the first 65 years of life.
    You also live long enough to see the pain of
    many citizens and various citizens because
    of inhuman debt,something I never had an
    inkling of when I was young and starting
    out in life,This acceptance of insurmountable
    debt from college age on is very weird to take
    for me.
    I think that is why I see so many young folks
    drink,to forget the ratrace.
    I have taught at University and heard often
    how hard that pressure to pay off the college
    loan is,that was 25 years ago,what has changed
    for most Americans?
    Just perhaps that the bills
    are higher.
    I wished I could just be a beach walker but I
    still have to work till I drop,who retires anymore?
    We all are in this boat together those of us
    not enjoying a trust fund of a zillion euros.

    May God or Buddha bless us,anyone!!!!

  63. endospores says:

    The video is not completely locked by country. Maybe to canada because canada has their own comedy central and thus some limitations. Best to view it on youtube.

  64. minTphresh says:

    crizzel@#107, don’t let the door hitcha where the good lord split ya!

  65. kaosmonkey says:

    @12

    the best part about being a hypocrite is that you can be both right and wrong AT THE SAME TIME.

    So yeah, I guess you’re correct.

  66. 4649 says:

    @ 12, 19, and the one that said “Jon Stewart keeps me sane.”

    “”The idea is [and the common sense of "hypocrisy" really is] that if you can show that the accuser of some moral injustice has at one point or another committed that same injustice to a greater or lesser extent, they are effectivly shut down and banned from speaking out on moral ills [i.e. a "hypocrite"] . “”

    Look, I have posted this thought before, though too long-windedly, for which I offer humble apologies:

    I thank #19 for an informative etymology; but I do believe it is important to add that the deservedly derogatory sense of the word is one which is as priceless as it is without alternative:

    a hypocrite is one who professes to believe something which s/he does not genuinely believe– regardless of whether or not s/he realizes that s/he does not in good faith believe it.

    Probably some politicians fall outside the bounds of (so-defined) hypocrisy.

    However, virtually all pundits do not. And I shudder to think how few voters do not. What makes “preaching to the choir” about Republican hypocrisy Fruitless is that the “energized base” who confer respectability upon hypocritical pundits are unaware of their hypocrisy, and bereft of any concept equivalent to (so defined)hypocrisy.

    The widespread, often unwitting supposition that voters of the opposite party are disingenuous is NIHILISM, folks. To say that “Jon Stewart keeps me sane” is to say that “I enjoy my sanity only as a means of retreat from reality.” For Jon Stewart is funny, and differs from the punditry he parodies so well, only by the fact that he is knowingly and purposefully hypocritical. (I stipulate that an earnest conversation with Karl Rove would be no less entertaining and informative.)

    A life outside of nihilism is impossible absent more than one genuinely good-spirited and genuinely competent and rivalrous parties. Be sure to keep your eyes attentive–in case the possibility of such a life arises.

    Maybe this is still long-winded. I hope that it is nevertheless more direct, readable, and so intelligible.

    I love you.

  67. Stefan Jones says:

    I watched Palin’s speech last night, and I was very inspired.

    Yes, she inspired me . . . .to donate $500.00 to the Obama campaign.

  68. pduggie says:

    Ok

    Quotes contra “Jesus is a community organizer” [first I'll say its funny that to defend the Obamessiah's calling, democrats *compare him to Jesus*]

    ““Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

    “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”

    “Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. … This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”

    “Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

    “And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them.”

    “Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”

    ““Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.””

    In his earthly ministry, he didn’t really organize any community. He told people to *not* resist the Romans (If they compel you to go one mile, go two)

  69. Peterus says:

    We in Europe had very good oportunity to see socialism in its many forms. I’m from Poland. We had hardcore commies on our eastern boarder two decades ago, and pretty tough commies in house. Now we have light socialism here and medium socialism behind our western boarder.

    All flavours.

    And man that wants to redistribute wealth thru massive nation-wide projects that will be financed by the rich (at least in rhetorics) is somewhat more socialist than medium.
    What’s in Obama program (as far as I know) is Chavez light (Ok, maybe he’s “extreme” socialist, Obama is just socialis). Tax oil companies, give everybody money, tax the rich, give everybody health insurances…

    Such demagogues sound fine, but they bring stagnation at best. Remains of some of massive programs for “helping everybody” are still evident in my country.

    As far as other issues go it’s not so plain, though economy is most important.

  70. mgfarrelly says:

    All this talk of hypocrites and splitting of hairs, pshaw.

    These talking heads are so wrapped up in their intractable agendas that they will say ANYTHING to further their cause. Hearing a millionaire who has never held a job in the private sector described as “an average guy” or a woman called a “reformer” after backing and raising millions for a senator now on trial on charges stemming from his campaign finances?

    I’m telling you, if anyone involved in politics tells you the sky is blue, get a second opinion. Notarized. In writing.

  71. Red Leatherman says:

    How come we choose from just two people to run for president and over fifty for Miss America ?

  72. Peterus says:

    @26
    WTF?
    You seriosuly believe what you write?

    Ppl that are “bad” can’t say truth now? Or truth said by ppl you classify as “manipulative bastards” is to be overlooked?

    “Jury please act as if you didn’t hear that! That was told by a manipulative bastard so it doesn’t count.”

  73. Phikus says:

    PETERUS@20: “Republican hypocrisy’ You are being redundant (in the current context of post 1980 politics.) The only exception to this is Mr. Ron Paul. Please explain why you believe McCain is the lesser of two evils, since you have decided to meddle in US politics. Try to do it without labeling anyone “socialist” because it doesn’t seem like you know what the word means. This should be interesting.

  74. Tvtyrant says:

    Personally I don’t feel that the argument that a point is still valid whether or not it comes from a hypocritical source can be upheld when regarding politics. The point of political discussion, and politics in a republic in total, is to decide which leaders/laws are going to help the nation most, or more specifically help the voter most. To make a hypocritical argument in a political debate is to attempt to make an uneven playing field in which a politician with equal or lesser ability/appeal can look better to voters than their opponents. While it is true that it is in the interest of both party’s to make hypocritical statements to just such an end, as voters we have a duty to see and reveal such tactics for what they are; a mask over the actual ability’s of the politicians. Even if the point WERE valid on it’s own, it’s effect in favor of one politician is essentially nullified by the fact that the announcers are accepting it for their side, but rejecting it on the other.

  75. Takuan says:

    are you endeavoring to make some point here?
    Also,how is this relevant to Islam?

  76. Talia says:

    Peterus, what you don’t see is that the country is already stagnating, and getting worse every day.

    We NEED to shake things up and the way to do that is not by contuing to uphold the policies that got us in this mess (BUSH) but to change.

    I would also like to point out McCain has at least one he “really doesn’t know much about the economy.”

    You imply giving everyone health insurance leads to stagnation? Oh really? How?
    Look at countries likes Sweden, with their universal health care. They’re just fine and dandy.

    People in the US are DYING because they cannot afford health care. That ain’t right.

    And then lets not even begin to go into the social issues. And you cannot simply set those aside and say “oh they’re not as important” because they deal with things like intellectual freedom and human rights. These are not things to be set aside lightly. They deal with things like the VERY FOUNDATION of the country, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, things that the Bush administration has, and likely the McBush administration would continue, to throw merrily out the window, destroying any iota of respectability this country may have remaining.

  77. ck says:

    @peterus

    Leaning left from polarizing Capitalism is not necessarily a bad thing…

  78. Ugly Canuck says:

    P Duggie: He told them not to resist the roman authority.
    This during the time of Nero!
    What do Christians know or care about freedom? Or politics?
    What do you? And why?
    f yr Chrstn Lv wr nt s mptnt y wld brn m t th stk…

  79. John Coulthart says:

    “Mark you this, Bassanio,
    The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”

    William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 3.

  80. Ugly Canuck says:

    Damn these demons in this keyboard!
    I cast thee out!

  81. Talia says:

    People can say a truth, but if they truly think its bad, they shouldn’t be doing it themselves. If they are doing something themselves, OBVIOUSLY they don’t think its THAT bad, and they are proving themselves full of crap.

    The point is that by being hypocrites, they demonstrate lack of integrity, and thus doubt must be shed on their abilities and anything they say.

  82. Takuan says:

    eww! not all over everything! Yuck! Sheesh! (get that one!)

  83. wrathofthekitty says:

    @67

    thanks for that wonderful life-like sermon…it was just like sunday morning when my mom forced me to go as a kid: i heard the first line, then got bored and zoned out. i think saying that jesus was a “community organizer” was less of a comparison for jesus to obama than it was an attempt to give the GOP an idea of what a “community organizer” does.

    @74

    i thought of this exact quote…you could not have said it better.

    @peterus

    it has been said several times, but obama is not an extreme socialist…if you were really from Poland i think that would be pretty obvious. also, dont say you are done with the argument only to come back and defend yourself :P

  84. FoetusNail says:

    Jesus was a rebel, if he lived at all, and Christians will run his ass outta town on a rail if he ever shows his face ’round here again. Because the only thing he’s going to save anyone from is Christianity.

    Anyway, we all know all leaders and politicians are liars and hypocrites at one time or another or they wouldn’t be leaders. Why are they liars? Leadership requires lying. So, the point isn’t about honesty or hypocrisy it is about what they do. Do they do evil or do they do good. You’ve got to admire, you can hate it too, their ability to appear on live TV and when presented with tape of a past position, they respond with a straight face and with indignation say, I never said that. And you know what, there are millions of people that believe them, it’s like some strange cobra hypnotism. Besides until recently it was damn rare for anyone to go back a pull a tape, still is!

  85. Ugly Canuck says:

    Is not being an “extreme” socialist like being an “extreme” centrist or “extreme” moderate? There is nothing, either personally or in terms of policy, “extreme” about anybody socialist that I’ve ever met. The right-wingers I know, well….it’s kinda a badge of honor, with some of the more clownish ones.

  86. bryanarchy says:

    Do you really expect pundits to remember what they said a few weeks ago, let alone a few minutes ago?!? For shame, John Stewart

  87. Boba Fett Diop says:

    So Petreus,
    How is what you’ve described worse than redistributing wealth to benefit the rich, financed mostly by the working poor and middle class? Because that’s what we’ve had over the last few years.

    Oh, and you should maybe come up and visit Canada some time. Society up here is organized along lines that are much closer to what you’ve described (although barely socialist by any commonly accepted definition) and we seem to do OK.

  88. Keeper of the Lantern says:

    #92 (CoffeeGirl):
    A civil war would be welcomed, as far as I’m concerned.
    Those Hillbillie redstates have been sucking at the coastal teats long enough, while we pay our taxes to build their highways, they’re voting for these outrageous torturing warmongers that cause more wars precisely so we coastal Americans can pump money into their warbases and defense contractors.
    Meanwhile, they like to believe that they’re self-reliant and more religious, but there’s is the pathway to death.

    Let’s note that we New Yorkers voted against Bush in 2004, even though it was we who were attacked, not the redstates. And now, we have the distinct possibility that they will foist McKane upon us.

    So what does that tell you? It tells you they know where their bread is buttered and they have no intention of letting us or our tax money go.

  89. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Re: Peterus at 20 and 29:

    No one needs to take him seriously. He claims he’s living in Europe, but he describes Obama as an “extreme socialist.” No way. Europeans actually know what socialists look like. They’ve got ‘em running around loose all over the place. Only a Koolaid-drinking American could possibly think Obama qualifies as any kind of socialist, much less an extreme one.

    Mojave @11, I’ve linked to your comment from Making Light.

    Rindan @12:

    What people need to realize is that being a hypocrite doesn’t invalidate an argument. It might mean that the hypocrite in question might not be the most personally upstanding citizen, but it isn’t an invalidation of the argument.

    Correct, and an excellent point. The validity of an argument does not depend on whether the person making it believes it, or has in the past espoused other viewpoints.

    Phikus @26: I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. The validity of an argument really doesn’t depend on the moral standing of the person making the argument.

    Have you ever taken part in an all-day debate tournament where every debate is on the same topic, and you switch sides every hour? The point isn’t whether the debaters’ arguments match their personal convictions, nor whether they match the arguments they made in the previous debate. It’s how they construct, document, and present their arguments in that round.

    CodeSuidae @47, work and hope are harder than despair. Also, there’s not a lot you can do after you’ve despaired, whereas work and hope go on forever.

    Digital Artz @64, thank you for that very thoughtful comment.

    Stefan Jones @66: Funny, it had the same effect on us.

    PDuggie @67, of course Jesus was a community organizer. If you want to sling scripture, I can take you on. So can Ill Lich. So ask yourself: is this a fight you want to start?

    Troy @80, you asked a tendentious question you thought couldn’t be answered. To your surprise, it was answered. You responded with more sneers. Your response has been deprecated.

    Godzilla @82, we don’t need a revolution. The Constitution we have is fine as is. What we need is to have it back in force.

    Phikus @90, I don’t mind you rapping Greebo’s knuckles, but you came down way too hard on Crizzel’s first-ever comment.

    Teapot7 @94, people arguing about moderation are frequently instructed to take it to the moderation thread, whatever their personal feelings about the appropriate locations for such events.

    Greebo @96, there are two questions I’d really love to have answered. First, why is it that the kind of people whose comments get disemvowelled or deleted so frequently use “hypocrite” as their all-purpose rejoinder? Second, why don’t they know how to spell “hypocrisy”?

  90. Phikus says:

    Teresa: I’ve been thinking a little more on this and I’d like to give a more concrete example to illustrate my point a little better, if I may.

    McCain is now running on the platform of change, mirroring one of the main thrusts of the Obama campaign since its inception. Change is a good idea. After 8 years of bush-Cheney cluster fiascoes, neither party is denying that things can’t go on as they have been. The rhetoric from both camps may contain a lot of the same language and message. Who do you believe can really deliver something different?

    It would seem to me that taking the goals of the source into account (both want to get elected, one’s party being the same that spawned and more closely collaborated with bush, the other being the loyal opposition, sometimes fighting him tooth and nail) and the context (one having a voting record more closely aligned with bush’s goals than the other) is the only way to weed out who is bullshiting more than the other. The arguments ring hollow when one has not taken actions to prove their intentions. If one has behaved opposite of their stated intentions, theirs is the greater hypocrisy.

    I agree that if you were simply debating issues in a vacuum, then the validity of an argument would stand on how well it is expressed and documented, but it seems to me that is not what we were talking about here in the context of this thread (this being the real world with people with real histories and agendas who are making these statements.) I never said that one’s moral standing lends more validity to one’s argument. I merely stated that a person’s goals and context are important in being able to discern who is more truthful and who is being more hypocritical in their statements, and thus, having the more meaningful argument. In short: Your actions do back up your words.

    Thank you for considering these points.

    In case you were wondering, I was not being facetious at #103. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and only wish you well. Even though we may disagree occasionally, I wanted to temper any animosity that might be perceived in cold text with an expression of genuine emotion.

  91. wurp says:

    Yaknow, we get the occasional rabid right winger here, and the occasional right leaning person with whom we could have a reasoned debate. Let’s try to avoid insulting the latter.

    I’d prefer to avoid insulting the former, too – it’s a waste of time. But by debating people we believe are misguided, we might have our mind changed (I can’t picture that, but hey, it’s possible), and if not, maybe we can find better ways to convince reasonable people of the error of their ways.

    Insulting people with whom we merely disagree just degrades debate into escalating name-calling.

    Peterus:
    Is your stance that Obama is “very socialist” based purely on his tax plan to reduce tax on the middle class, while increasing tax slightly on the rich?

    If we were talking about the rich having double the tax rate of the middle class, I could see your point. However, right now the rich mostly make their money from capital gains, which is taxed *significantly lower* in the US than the tax rate for middle class Americans.

    Also remember that tax rates for the rich have been reduced much more than tax rates on the middle class in the last 8 years.

    Finally, Democratic presidents very consistently show better job growth than Republican. It’s clearly just wrong to say tax cuts for the rich improve the economy.

    Check out Wikipedia’s page on jobs created during each president’s term. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms#Job_creation_by_term)

    Sort that chart of jobs created during each president’s term by the Average Annual Increase:

    (Notice that the sort in wikipedia is text based – after sorting, you have to mentally move the top two entries to the bottom to get the real numeric sort.)

    The sort neatly puts ALL democrats at the top of the chart, and ALL republicans at the bottom, with one democrat exception (Roosevelt/Truman, who would have placed third best among republicans).

    That’s right, since 1929, the second worst democratic record of job creation beats the best republican record. Now, some of that is luck, but the evidence is astoundingly strong that having a democratic president is simply much better for the economy than having a republican president.

  92. Brainspore says:

    #12 posted by Rindan , September 4, 2008 12:53 PM

    I guess my point is that we shouldn’t use hypocrisy as an argument for justifying bad behavior. You can be both a hypocrite AND right.

    …but only half the time.

    For example, Bill-O may have been right when he said that Spears’ parents were pinheads for letting their daughter get knocked up, or he may have been right when he said the Palins shouldn’t get any flack for the same thing. But clearly he wasn’t right about BOTH. Same thing goes for preachers that pay for gay sex, POWs who support torture, etc.

  93. crizzel says:

    yes, republicans are hypocrites… so are democrats.

    People are happy to crucify the other side for something they are happy to forgive from their own side. The actually stances and positions are details.

    That in a nutshell, is the current state of American politics. Both sides appear happy to go on like that.

  94. Troy says:

    Thnks fr th 2 tms Rsh Lmbgh tlkd bt Chls… gn — whr s th tm Cnsrvtvs vr wnt ftr Chls r lgr nd hs drgs. Rsh dd t xctly twc s mny tms s Strdy Nght Lv dd. Ww 2 tms — tht’s cmpgn f smr th lks f whch hv nvr bn sn.

    Gng ftr Bll nd Hllry s fr gm jst lk gng ftr Srh Pln — pltcs s rgh gt tht. Cnsrvtv NVR hd n rgnzd cmpgn t bsmrch Chls r nyn’s kd.

    Pckng n 17 yr ld s sy. ‘d lk t s Jn Stwrt r ny f th thr bm pstls d t n frnt f Tdd Pln. Lck crg ‘d mgn. Sty clssy.

  95. Phikus says:

    CRIZZEL@107: Really? Wow. You could have clarified your stance without getting insulting, but instead you proved me right to call you out on your generalizations. When you resort to name-calling, you surely have no argument at all. Let’s take a look at what you said originally:

    “yes, republicans are hypocrites… so are democrats.”

    This post was not about Democrat hypocrisy, hence the title. This is why I said: “When the Dems make such blatant hypocritical statements, I would expect them to be called on it too.” In other words, if Obama, Hilary, or Biden fuck up this brilliantly, they will get their turn as well.

    Then you said:

    “People are happy to crucify the other side for something they are happy to forgive from their own side. The actually stances and positions are details.”

    People? Which people? All people? This is way too wide of a generalization to be of any use, even overlooking grammatical flub. In the context of this thread, it would seem that you were referring to the folks commenting here on the aforementioned Republican hypocrisy. This is why I replied: “Your assumption that readers here will look the other way when / if Dems do the same is idiotic and insulting.”

    Note I did not call you an idiot, as you did. I said the assumption you seemed to make was idiotic, in my opinion, and insulting to those here who are participating in this discussion more constructively.

    Lastly, you said:

    “That in a nutshell, is the current state of American politics. Both sides appear happy to go on like that.”

    Now you are finally making a comment on the state of American politics, which seemed to me to be a giant leap in simplicity and narrow-mindedness. It does not suggest an alternative solution or reasonably entertain any other possibilities, which is why I commented that it is filled with failure. That you find the details immaterial is further evidence that you are not being helpful to the discussion at hand. The devil is always in the details.

    It seems to me that these political articles in this election year bring out a lot of first-time posters who do little to further the discussion at hand, and would rather offer fatalistic generalizations in the effort to derail the general thread. I was calling you out on this, albeit not delicately. If you are bored by this, then please feel free not to return. If you stay, I would hope you would be able to meet me on the plane of ideas and rational discussion, not devolving into the kind of reactionary poo slinging you purport to eschew. Simply because you engage in the kind of hypocrisy that you seem “happy” to ignore in your own statements does not mean that everyone else does, here in this thread or in “American politics” in general.

  96. Troy says:

    nd lv th lctrs t th Plsh dd wh lvd ndr ctl sclr lftsm frm th flks wth thr dmctns.

    xtrm cptlsm… tk n dmnstrtv lw clss dd — w r rgltd n VRY prtn f r lvs t sm pnt. W hv nvr hd mr rgltd cnmy. Swdn s tnkng — nd thy dn’t hv t dfnd thmslvs — W dfnd thm. t’s sy t hv “brth t rth” sclsm whn y dn’t hv t hv mch f dfns bdgt. W lv Lndsthl — rp drps ts sclsm prtty qckly.

  97. Godzilla says:

    I am truly sad for my country. So much so that If McCain wins this election, I honestly don’t know if I can continue to live here. If Obama wins, i can probably give them another 4 years before I bail at least.

    I remember when I was a kid, my grandfather (ww2 vet) used to tell me how much he loved his country, and looking at the current state of affairs it just makes me sad at what happened to the true America.

    What we really need is a full out revolution. The entire federal government needs to be gutted and the corruption rooted out. The powers that be won’t let that happen. To many Americans either don’t care, or a blinded by the ridiculous propaganda on both sides.

    It’s pathetic. This whole country has become pathetic.

    The America i was told about in my youth is dead and buried.

    Australia or Canada are looking like pleasant choices.

  98. buddy66 says:

    You haven’t met many socialists, Canuck. Ever know a trotskyist, or any of the Marxist-based rads? You’ve been spoiled by Canadian socialism and its bourgeois trappings.

  99. Trevel says:

    Arguably, hypocrites are more likely to be right than other people — they get to have TWO opinions instead of just one!

    At any rate, I believe that a woman shouldn’t get a free pass just because she’s a woman, and I also believe that a woman shouldn’t be picked on FOR being a woman. Does that make me a hypocrite, too?

    I also believe that the US is north of Brazil and south of Canada. OMG IMA HYPOCRITE! Which is it? North or south? Why won’t I just PICK ONE!

  100. ill lich says:

    #67 PDUGGIE

    I don’t think Obama is a messiah, and I doubt anybody who is voting for him thinks so either, certainly not in the ancient sense of the word, he’s just a competent politician, a talented public speaker and an intelligent man, and after 8 years of the exact opposite with Bush we want as much change as possible.

    So quit it with the “Obamessiah” silliness, it dumbs your arguments down; would you take my arguments seriously if I referred to McCain as “McCan’t” (or worse)?

    Whether or not Jesus was a community organizer is up for debate, but the GOP spent much of Wednesday night denigrating community organizing, portraying it as something unimportant, and yet tonight I heard McCain do the exact opposite in his speech, asking his fellow Americans to help out in their communities. Clearly the GOP as a whole has a problem with hypocrisy.

    How about you quote Matthew 19:24 or 25:40-45 and compare that to GOP philosophy. And how does Matthew 5:39 apply to Bin Laden?

  101. bardfinn says:

    I will point out that there is a difference between being right and being /technically correct on a specific point/.

    One is a personal quality. The other may be accidentally stumbled upon – for even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

  102. Baldhead says:

    I find it impossible to believe that republicans could be hypocrites. I mean, they’re all good Christian- oh wait.

  103. Whetzell says:

    Come on, political parties are not defined or properly represented by the media that supports them. It’s the politicians we should check for inconsistencies not television personality attention hounds. It’s unfair to look at the most staunchly conservative blow hards and say they represent the party.

  104. jimh says:

    Hey Troy, you know that the McCain campaign broke the story on her daughter, right? They released the story like throwing steak to wolves, and then they played the victim when the wolves ate it up. Believe me, I condemn the actions of the media in this case AND the campaign that plays dirty with kids’ lives. But honestly, this is expected of the media in general, because sensationalism sells. The GOP pundits get to be “shocked and disgusted” when the media goes crazy over a story that was handed to them by the McCain camp? It’s made to order armor coating for Palin, and don’t think for a minute that they expected anything less.

  105. Marrz says:

    anyone else McCain kinda sealed his own fate when he selected her as his VP? About time the republican party made a mistake that actually Helped the nation.

  106. buddy66 says:

    GREEBO,

    Can I have “kerb”? It frees up “curb” as a verb. Which do they use in Grandmother’s Land?

  107. Takuan says:

    let’s see what happens, Godzilla.

  108. bardfinn says:

    WHETZELL: Have you taken the opportunity to actually /read/ the G.O.P. platform?

    Couple the GOP platform with the fact that major candidates running as GOP have to pass a loyalty test – over their stances on the platform – before being approved for endorsement or funding, and any Republican of significance can safely be said to be a staunchly socially conservative blowhard.

    The platform itself is practically a blueprint for hypocrisy, with the short-form directly contradicting or perversely weasel-misrepresenting the long form in many cases.

  109. randwolf says:

    Oh, and do tell me about the Democratic Trotskyite wing. I want to meet these extreme socialists.

  110. greebo says:

    Y knw, ths dsmvwlng thng s vry rrttng nd smwht rrgnt. Cn’t y lt yr vdnc rd thm nd dcd fr thmslvs? f thy’r trly ffnsv, jst dn’t pst thm. Th rng f pnns xprssd n Bngbng’s cmmnts sctns r xtrmly ntrstng, nd prt f th vl f th whl st. Mkng t sgnfcntly hrdr fr yr rdrs t rd sm f thm ds dssrvc t s ll.

    Dsclmr: ws nc dsmvwlld, nd m stll sr frm th xprnc.

  111. alisong76 says:

    I just wish shows like TDS and TCR weren’t preaching to the choir. As if any fans of McCain, Palin et al are actually watching.

  112. Talia says:

    Marrz: I donno. I was rather appalled to see the poll on cnn.com today that gave Palin’s speech last night a thumbs up. I’m afraid that means she’s winning people over sheerly on the force of her wit, not, say, her ethics, or stances on issues, or qualifications, or anything else that matters.

  113. lava says:

    there is a big difference between socialism and undoing the cards that are stacked against the poor and middle class.

  114. codesuidae says:

    I’m voting for Obama. But if he wins I still expect this country to go to hell in a handbasket. The political systems, in spite of the presence of many good and well-meaning people, are simply too corrupt.

    It looks to me like we’ve got a choice of either revolution or eventual effective dictatorship and fascism. And I doubt it’ll be revolution, The People don’t have the balls for that.

    Or, if they do, it’ll be like this great YouTube short: watch?v=C8aFxk0aUuU

Leave a Reply