Port-o-potties at concerts/events.There was a time in my life when having one of those might have been appealing. I'm older and less likely to be in situations where it would come in handy now, though.
Jon Stewart's Last Episode of the Daily Show on August 6
- Thread starter Lord Tyrion
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
When you can't think of a good comeback... go with the potty joke, eh? Never fails.
That would mean going to concerts/events.
Just about any line at a big event for the ladies restroom versus the guys restroom, I'd say.
You said "Go Girl" That is called the "Go Girl". Given your inability to understand Jon Stewart's narrative has been a big long joke on neocon crap, it doesn't surprise me this one also flew right over like a crop duster...When you can't think of a good comeback... go with the potty joke, eh? Never fails.
I remarked this years ago, but when ladies are in line for the port-o-potty, they might still be joking and smiling, etc. When they come out, EVERY woman has the look of shame and disgust on their face because what they just went through was awful. Start noticing. You'll see and laugh too.
Well actually polls consistently show the Fox News crowd to be the most uninformed voters. About facts, not zingers based on ignorance and falsehoods they've been fed. On the zinger front, they are the compendium of all knowledge.
Uninformed also includes misinformed, BTW. Having a bunch of zingers, when based on debunked falsehoods, is the same net effect as knowing nothing. Getting it wrong is getting it wrong, regardless of why. This study just brought some science to what I've said all along. When you base ideology on fairy tales, easy to correct with education falsehoods and assumptions declared as "fact", you're going to be wildly off on the opinions you form. It works both ways, left or right.I remember the Daily Show segment where Stewart made that claim.
Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests - Forbes
Not a claim, a scientific poll.
Yeah, I saw that in Forbes before. A statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents? New Jersey residents? Scientific poll LOL? The people who picked as their last three governors Jim McGreevey, Jon Gorzine and Chris Christie determine this to be a scientific poll. Personally, I think all the smart ones have emigrated to Pennsylvania.
(And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you once state that you only trusted Forbes when it comes to economic issues?)
Well since they didn't leave the country, they only moved and therefore migrated. A small, yet crucial detail, which renders what you think to be correct, incorrect. Also see pretty much everything you think politically for many more examples. Now once you've been told, it's only willful cognitive dissonance to blame.Yeah, I saw that in Forbes before. A statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents? New Jersey residents? Scientific poll LOL? The people who picked as their last three governors Jim McGreevey, Jon Gorzine and Chris Christie determine this to be a scientific poll. Personally, I think all the smart ones have emigrated to Pennsylvania.
And yes scientific. Which means it has a margin of error. That is the definition of a scientific poll. But hey it wasn't enough in your opinion. OK, then how about a former Reagan policy adviser, GHW Bush Treasury member, Ron Paul adviser and Heritage Foundation member, Bruce Bartlett? He's no liberal or Democrat. He also isn't a TP knuckle-dragger and recognizes how dumb they and Fox News have made the GOP and ruined the Republican message.
Yeah it's HuffPo, but just linking for their summary of the study and the reporting of it:
Fox News Is Hurting Republicans, Former Bush Official Says
From the article:
"Republican voters get so much of their news from Fox, which cheerleads whatever their candidates are doing or saying, that they suffer from wishful thinking and fail to see that they may not be doing as well as they imagine, or that their ideas are not connecting outside the narrow party base," Bartlett said.
Citing a host of other studies, Bartlett found that Fox News viewers tended to have misguided beliefs about the Iraq War, the Affordable Care Act and other major issues. He also noted that Fox's audience tended to hold a bias against Muslims.
"It appears that right-wing bias, including inaccurate reporting, became commonplace on Fox," Bartlett said.
Here is the link to the actual paper (published this year):
How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics by Bruce Bartlett :: SSRN
The opening summary:
"The creation of Fox News in 1996 was an event of deep, yet unappreciated, political and historical importance. For the first time, there was a news source available virtually everywhere in the United States, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a conservative tilt. Finally, conservatives did not have to seek out bits of news favorable to their point of view in liberal publications or in small magazines and newsletters. Like someone dying of thirst in the desert, conservatives drank heavily from the Fox waters. Soon, it became the dominant – and in many cases, virtually the only – major news source for millions of Americans. This has had profound political implications that are only starting to be appreciated. Indeed, it can almost be called self-brainwashing – many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth."
Correct you if you're wrong? Ummm, that's all I have time to do with you. I mean it's almost astounding how someone can be so wrong and analyze things so poorly so often like you do, but I still do what I can to help. So no, I don't believe that was me. I may have said it's hard for a right winger to deny a right wing source on economics, etc. But trust them? Unless I can verify their "facts" I don't necessarily immediately trust any reporting agency. They all get things wrong sometimes. Fox gets them wrong about 99% of the time. They do remember their own names, so I had to give them SOME credit.
I notice MSNBC fared almost as bad. But no matter how you slice it... It's still New Jersey.Well since they didn't leave the country, they only moved and therefore migrated. A small, yet crucial detail, which renders what you think to be correct, incorrect. Also see pretty much everything you think politically for many more examples. Now once you've been told, it's only willful cognitive dissonance to blame.
And yes scientific. Which means it has a margin of error. That is the definition of a scientific poll. But hey it wasn't enough in your opinion. OK, then how about a former Reagan policy adviser, GHW Bush Treasury member, Ron Paul adviser and Heritage Foundation member, Bruce Bartlett? He's no liberal or Democrat. He also isn't a TP knuckle-dragger and recognizes how dumb they and Fox News have made the GOP and ruined the Republican message.
Yeah it's HuffPo, but just linking for their summary of the study and the reporting of it:
Fox News Is Hurting Republicans, Former Bush Official Says
From the article:
"Republican voters get so much of their news from Fox, which cheerleads whatever their candidates are doing or saying, that they suffer from wishful thinking and fail to see that they may not be doing as well as they imagine, or that their ideas are not connecting outside the narrow party base," Bartlett said.
Citing a host of other studies, Bartlett found that Fox News viewers tended to have misguided beliefs about the Iraq War, the Affordable Care Act and other major issues. He also noted that Fox's audience tended to hold a bias against Muslims.
"It appears that right-wing bias, including inaccurate reporting, became commonplace on Fox," Bartlett said.
Here is the link to the actual paper (published this year):
How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics by Bruce Bartlett :: SSRN
The opening summary:
"The creation of Fox News in 1996 was an event of deep, yet unappreciated, political and historical importance. For the first time, there was a news source available virtually everywhere in the United States, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a conservative tilt. Finally, conservatives did not have to seek out bits of news favorable to their point of view in liberal publications or in small magazines and newsletters. Like someone dying of thirst in the desert, conservatives drank heavily from the Fox waters. Soon, it became the dominant – and in many cases, virtually the only – major news source for millions of Americans. This has had profound political implications that are only starting to be appreciated. Indeed, it can almost be called self-brainwashing – many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth."
Correct you if you're wrong? Ummm, that's all I have time to do with you. I mean it's almost astounding how someone can be so wrong and analyze things so poorly so often like you do, but I still do what I can to help. So no, I don't believe that was me. I may have said it's hard for a right winger to deny a right wing source on economics, etc. But trust them? Unless I can verify their "facts" I don't necessarily immediately trust any reporting agency. They all get things wrong sometimes. Fox gets them wrong about 99% of the time. They do remember their own names, so I had to give them SOME credit.
(have you been to New Jersey... I'd say emigrated sounds about right. Either that or some invasion from outer space.
)
Oh I agree MSNBC doesn't do the liberals any favors and if they sit and watch that all day they will get a misguided picture of things. That's why I don't watch either. Jon Stewart was hilarious so I watched him. I actually watched the Daily Show back when it was Craig Killborn hosting at first and then Stewart took over. It wasn't too political at first. It mostly made fun of the real news from any stripe. It started turning more political as time went on and the Fox News crowd started repeating the rhetoric they'd heard. Stewart's point was always that Fox was essentially fake news so he was the opposing fake news voice.I notice MSNBC fared almost as bad. But no matter how you slice it... It's still New Jersey.
(have you been to New Jersey... I'd say emigrated sounds about right. Either that or some invasion from outer space.
Yes, I've been sucked in by the magical drawing power of the Garden State. Perhaps you have a good point on emigrate/migrate. If you asked them, they'd say we don't understand because "It's a Jersey thing". In fact, a friend and I have a phrase that describes getting caught in a sham: "We just got Mahwah'd".
Why marry the bull when you get the bullsh!t for free?
Oh . . . that's good.
I'm stealing that.
Yes I am.
You aren't free. Correcting your BS is a lot of work and mental stress.Why marry the bull when you get the bullsh!t for free?
Another article interviewing Bartlett about his paper and why he took up the study:
Can Bruce Bartlett save the GOP by bursting its 'bubble'? - LA Times
A couple of very key and interesting points conservatives should pay attention to:
you're concerned that bubble-think could damage GOP electability.
A lot of conservatives are a bit worried about this. They understand this isn't good for the party. It's going to hurt us in 2016 because if we have people who are not serious candidates, making ridiculous arguments about Obama's invasion of Texas and other crackpot issues, all Hillary has to do is nothing.
You used the term "self-brainwashing" to describe how the bubble affects policymaking.
[Here are] two examples: One is Benghazi, an issue about which nobody outside the Fox universe cares. Yet [congressional] Republicans keep holding one investigation after another, and when their investigation proves there's nothing wrong, they ignore it and start a new investigation. The other is the obsession with Obamacare. Fox has given forums to Obamacare's critics to a far greater extent than other media.
To what extent has President Obama himself become the fuel for conservative obsessions?
I hate to play up the race angle, but I don't see how you can avoid it. Republican conservatives deny Obama's legitimacy: That's the basis for this thing about his birth certificate. In a poll after the 2012 election, 58% of Republicans said the election was stolen. I don't want to make too much of a sociological argument, but this does date back historically to the denial of humanity to slaves because the only way whites could rationalize treating them as slaves was to deny they're actual human beings.
Do Democrats have a bubble too?
There are people who only watch MSNBC or [listen to] Stephanie Miller, but that's a very small number compared to people [in the bubble] on the right. Pew [Research Center] polling data [shows] Democrats get their news from more varied sources. A lot of the Democratic coalition are not really liberal, they're good-government people, they want government to work; whereas vast numbers of Republicans are essentially operational anarchists — they hate government, they use every opportunity to destroy government, because in their warped view that is per se good.
That last bit about Democrats I enlarged is 100% me. I am not a liberal. I believe in the power of government because it's all we really have in the end to keep us from total anarchy. The last part of that is EXACTLY what I've been saying here for years now and being told it's BS and what have you. This is a player from the golden kingdom of Reagan. Hard to deny a true conservative making this case in an effort to get the GOP to pull their heads out and get rid of these Tea Party/Fox News turkeys.
Can Bruce Bartlett save the GOP by bursting its 'bubble'? - LA Times
A couple of very key and interesting points conservatives should pay attention to:
you're concerned that bubble-think could damage GOP electability.
A lot of conservatives are a bit worried about this. They understand this isn't good for the party. It's going to hurt us in 2016 because if we have people who are not serious candidates, making ridiculous arguments about Obama's invasion of Texas and other crackpot issues, all Hillary has to do is nothing.
You used the term "self-brainwashing" to describe how the bubble affects policymaking.
[Here are] two examples: One is Benghazi, an issue about which nobody outside the Fox universe cares. Yet [congressional] Republicans keep holding one investigation after another, and when their investigation proves there's nothing wrong, they ignore it and start a new investigation. The other is the obsession with Obamacare. Fox has given forums to Obamacare's critics to a far greater extent than other media.
To what extent has President Obama himself become the fuel for conservative obsessions?
I hate to play up the race angle, but I don't see how you can avoid it. Republican conservatives deny Obama's legitimacy: That's the basis for this thing about his birth certificate. In a poll after the 2012 election, 58% of Republicans said the election was stolen. I don't want to make too much of a sociological argument, but this does date back historically to the denial of humanity to slaves because the only way whites could rationalize treating them as slaves was to deny they're actual human beings.
Do Democrats have a bubble too?
There are people who only watch MSNBC or [listen to] Stephanie Miller, but that's a very small number compared to people [in the bubble] on the right. Pew [Research Center] polling data [shows] Democrats get their news from more varied sources. A lot of the Democratic coalition are not really liberal, they're good-government people, they want government to work; whereas vast numbers of Republicans are essentially operational anarchists — they hate government, they use every opportunity to destroy government, because in their warped view that is per se good.
That last bit about Democrats I enlarged is 100% me. I am not a liberal. I believe in the power of government because it's all we really have in the end to keep us from total anarchy. The last part of that is EXACTLY what I've been saying here for years now and being told it's BS and what have you. This is a player from the golden kingdom of Reagan. Hard to deny a true conservative making this case in an effort to get the GOP to pull their heads out and get rid of these Tea Party/Fox News turkeys.
That's a bunch or crap. His interviews with Donald Rumsfeld, Timothy Giethner and Christopher Hitchens were more productive than the stuff you see on any news channel. If you stayed away from the right wing echo chamber, you might be able to see that.
As for the article, the author either doesn't watch the Daily Show or is blatantly being dishonest. Stewart has addressed these criticisms.