Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
John Stewart breaks down te GOP "debate", and rips em a new one too
onegoodmove.org — Are there any Republicans at all that would make even a tolerable president? I don't see any here. Anti-science, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-intellectual anti-truth.
interg12- 1816 diggs
- digg it
- PatrickHenry, on 10/23/2007, -42/+211First of all Ron Paul brought out the point that ALL people have RIGHTS! Not some specific group. If a homosexual is disruptive to unit moral then the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) should address it, however if a heterosexual is disruptive to unit moral then the UCMJ should also address that as well. What I see being lost is the fact that we are all members of the human race, we all have RIGHTS! When anyone transgress those rights mankind institutes governments to protect those rights! Ron Paul is correct in his stance. The Constitution of the united States is a federalist document that declares all the power resides with the STATES and the PEOPLE and delegate very limited powers to "Heir" decider! Oh wait!!!! decider is just another word for dictate.........
- elk1, on 10/11/2007, -73/+34Also, it seems as though his audience forgot that their beloved Bill Clinton was the one who instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
- sgglynn, on 10/11/2007, -40/+15Sorry, I can't respond to that, the answer is a null set
- busterbluther, on 10/11/2007, -26/+8Ok, let's compare a few of the candidates:
http://www.voteonthebook.com/candidates/compare/John_McCain/Rudy_Giuliani
http://www.voteonthebook.com/candidates/compare/Jim_Gilmore/Tom_Tancredo
http://www.voteonthebook.com/candidates/compare/John_McCain/Tom_Tancredo
http://www.voteonthebook.com/candidates/compare/Ron_Paul/Tommy_Thompson
See any differences? - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -17/+116@elk1
to be fair... Bill Clinton wouldn't have been able to get the military to accept a full-disclosure stance on accepting gays in the military whlie there was a republican house and senate. He did the best he could at the time and at least moved the military towards a more understanding stance. It was progress even if just a little. - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3@busterbluther
I think you're missing Mitt Romney vs. Mike Huckabee.
(and Sam Brownback is ignored altogether) - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -16/+44patrickhenry: you seem to be under the delusion that gays want special rights in the military, they want the same rights. if heterosexual people can serve openly, why not gays? let everyone serve openly. if there is a behavior issue with anyone, gay or straight, it should be dealt with then. bringing up the behavior issue is a way to dodge the question of whether they should be able to server openly or not. those who still want to maintain "don't ask don't tell" are either homophobic or pandering to the homophobic vote (sadly a lot of people).
- revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -60/+21Ron Paul sucks. He is against federal funding of science. Does that include NASA?
- revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -51/+20People who are digging me down: can you give me any good reason why Paul would be a better president than Gravel?
I'm sure instead of using your heads, most of you will just bury me. - TheFlamingoKing, on 10/11/2007, -45/+121revenge7, Ron Paul is against most federal funding of anything. You like working 3 1/2 hrs of each 8 hr day to pay Uncle Sam? I'm tired of the government thinking my money is theirs to spend.
If it means the loss of NASA along with all the other government bloat, so be it. If space exploration is economically beneficial then private industry will pick up the slack, as seen with Virgin Galactic... - stargatesteve, on 10/11/2007, -45/+13@CannedMango
to be realistic... Bill Clinton was too busy in "meetings" with interns to do much anyway. - revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -30/+27@flamingoking
There are plenty of candidates that would cut military funding and get us out of Iraq. About half of the money we spend goes to military, so if we cut down on that, we could increase funding to other fields, and we would still be spending way less than we are now. - 3tcp, on 10/11/2007, -13/+33The democratic candidates don't look much better than the republicans. The only chance I can see for a reasonable president is if Michael Bloomberg jumps into the race as an independent and spends his own money so he isn't stuck tip-toeing around afraid that he might piss off a special interest group that supported his campaign.
- TheFlamingoKing, on 10/11/2007, -18/+36@revenge7
Cutting military spending is fine and all, but getting us back to the pre-war bloat is not acceptable. There are still countless government programs that waste taxpayer dollars... and I believe NASA is one of them. So much of NASA's mission right now is just conducting experiments for private companies anyway. Make them foot the bill, not me.
The first thing I would ask you is why is it OK for the government to take 30% of my paycheck anyway? Why do so many people just accept income tax? Add sales tax and property tax and it's even higher. Why can't I earn my paycheck and then decide what I want to use it on? If I believe space exploration is crucial, then I will donate the money myself, not be forced to. - elioty, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24@busterbluther
Those comparisons aren't that interesting, but I thought Ron Paul v. Giuliani was ( http://www.voteonthebook.com/candidates/compare/Ron_Paul/Rudy_Giuliani ).
Paul:
Advocates a foreign policy of nonintervention, and believes that “we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don’t end.”
Has said he would immediately work to phase out the IRS.
Giuliani:
Believes that any withdrawal from Iraq will only embolden the terrorists.
Has said that using military force against Iran would be “very dangerous,” but that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be worse.
Has said we must “adjust” the alternative minimum tax.
Has said it would be “OK” to repeal Roe v. Wade and return the issue to states, because the country can deal with either that outcome or the status quo. - Cam_86, on 10/11/2007, -58/+50@theflamingoking
What the hell is wrong with people like you? Why do you distrust the government so damn much? Yeah, around 30% of your earnings go to them, bu guess what? They need that money to make the country work... Roads, public clinics, schools, etc... I honestly cant wrap my mind around this typical American/conservative argument. If you have such a distrust for the government, then stop electing people you don't trust! The mere fact that the republican party has openly said "we don't want to raise taxes because the government(which we are hoping you will let us control) will waste it" kinda makes me wonder how stupid their supporters need to be.
You can bitch and whine all you want about public run operations, but the mere fact that they are created to serve the public, and NOT make the CEO and owner billions of dollars, makes me favor it. Plus, look at America's health insurance industry. Its a sick joke, when MOST of the money paid to them goes into profits, and administrative issues, rather then providing actual care. Americans on average pay 2x as much as people in countries with socialized medicine yet get equal, or worse treatment... How can anyone with half a brain want to spread that system outwards to deal with other industries? - 9Digits, on 10/11/2007, -53/+13Oh goodie - more Ron Paul jackasses have come out of the woodwork! By the time this year is out I'll have blocked each of them!
***** spamming *****! - jrspartan53, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5@CannedMango
yes, it's true that there is no way he would have been able to pass that type of legislation, but i don't think he would have wanted to either. Remember this is the same president who signed the defense of marriage act, effectively banning equal rights for gay marriages by saying that unlike marriages between heterosexual couples, a gay marriage in one state did not have to be recognized in any other state.
- DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -17/+12""Also, it seems as though his audience forgot that their beloved Bill Clinton was the one who instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.""
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it Clinton's fault yet? I just got here.
Hey bonehead, in case you haven't noticed already, Bush and the rest of his Neo Nazi pals have highjacked your party and turned it into Vaporware overnight! And Bill O'Lielly said the "Liberals highjacked the DNC?" Riiiiight Fools!!
The GOP is heading like a speedtrain into extinction. The way of the Dodo bird. The Republican party will be half the size of the B.C. Marijuana Party ticket by 2008
Like you BigMac eating inbreds always say, "I'm Loving It!" - dracflamloc, on 10/11/2007, -15/+45@Cam
The country worked fine before the 1900's when they started the federal income tax.
It can work fine without it now. - bigturns, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Valkesh said, "I'm beginning to think that Idiocracy (2006) was a documentary..."
Taken from the comments found in the orig article.
Nicely put... - bacon_skoda, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5define disruptive.
notice that none of the candidates said Yes or No.
from guiliani and romney's answers, when they say disruptive, they mean coming out.
being gay is disruptive. and basically dodged the question by letting the generals make the
decision.
I may be commander in chief, by i defer to my generals. some balls. - gbacci, on 10/11/2007, -6/+28@Cam
Truly market-oriented medical industries have been great, both for those who provide the service and those who receive it. Look at something like Lasik eye operations - the price has continued to drop as the competition balances within the market, and millions of people choose to pay for the service and get great care. Yes, I realize health care is not as simple as laser eye surgery, but just making a point.
CEO's may make billions, and some are certainly more corrupt than others, but at least I get to choose which CEO's pocket I want to line. Why the government has to take 30% of my money and stick it's nose in everything is beyond me. You ask "What the hell is wrong with you people?" We work hard for our money and we want to spend it as we please. So I guess I'd ask, what the hell is wrong with you? - Gavron, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16Good work 9Digits, keep burying your head in the sand by blocking people that believe in different things than you. Maybe if you keep it up your myopic worldview can remain intact.
*****. - TheFlamingoKing, on 10/11/2007, -14/+56@Cam_86
I would ask what the hell is wrong with people like you? Why do you want the nanny state so badly? Can you not take responsibility for yourself?
Roads? My state sales tax dollars go to fund local construction. My federal tax dollars go to build a bridge in an entirely different state that I will never see or use or benefit from.
Public clinics? What will they be able to achieve, wrapped in their own bureaucratic red tape, compared to the same private clinic funded by people who care to help? So I should have to pay for public clinics in other states, that I will never see used, and never benefit from?
Schools? That's funny. You think children get a good education in the public system we have now? My mom's a teacher and I will tell you that's a joke. The system is made to educate a few and babysit the rest - look at the reports on the drop in skilled labor in America. Your idea that I should have to pay for this system considering I have no children is asinine.
Your trust for the government is scary. When you trust the government, you get the government we have now - funnelling taxpayer dollars to Halliburton and Exxon.
Your funniest argument is that I should elect people I trust! As if anyone I voted for over the last 10 years got elected in this crooked ass political system.
Lastly, don't label me Republican or conservative based on your two party media-driven stereotypes. I am neither conservative nor liberal, Republican nor Democrat. - Cam_86, on 10/11/2007, -23/+12@dracflamloc
You mean back when the roads were paved in dirt and the avg. life expectancy was in the late 50's? Yeah, that was working out swell... Most people judge a country based off how its poor/disenfranchised are treated... Not only are these guys openly blunt about their dislike towards disenfranchised people(gays dont have the right to fight and die for their nation, eh?), but most are trying to turn off what little help america offered to their poor. - eleventybillion, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6TIN FOIL HAT!!!! TIN FOIL HAT!!! TIN FOIL HAAAAATTTT!!!!!!
Someone always has to shout that when anyone makes a salient point that contradicts the stance of The Party.
TIN FOIL HAT!!!!!!
Unless your opinion matches mine and supports it, you're wearing a TIN FOIL HAT!!!! - TheFlamingoKing, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29@Cam
"but most are trying to turn off what little help america offered to their poor"
Are we thinking of the same America? I'm thinking of the one that exploited foreign workers to build railroads and factories... I don't remember them "offering" much but a small day's wages for a lot of hard work. Your "help" didn't come until the New Deal, with Social Security and welfare.
The American Dream isn't "Poor people come to America and we help you out." It's "Come to America, and if you work hard, you can have anything." - Cam_86, on 10/11/2007, -18/+10@theflamingoking
Yeah, and pray to god, that before you make it big, you don't trip and break your leg...
I understand people want a competitive work force, but for god sakes, tens of millions of Americans have no medical coverage what-so-ever... and that's not even factoring in the 12-20 million who are undocumented.
If you want your nation to run like the wild west. Survival of the Fittest, Weed out the Weak, then by all means, vote for it. Just keep in mind that its the exact opposite direction EVERY other industrialized nation is going in... Also remember that to want this system, its clear you are a white christian heterosexual... cause obviously people who don't belong in that group are not only going to refuse to support it, but. probably lose sleep worrying about it coming into effect. Gays who worry about not being allowed in the military know that is nothing compared to the crap they will face when a un-regulated insurance industry refuses coverage because they are statistically at a higher risk to certain illnesses, and only account for a minority, so it makes no economical sense to extend coverage to them.
It'll be a WONDERFUL country...
/sarcasm - theroyalweman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16@CannedMango
The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was implemented in 1993 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask%2C_don%27t_tell
The party makeup of the 102nd and 103rd Congresses (1991-1993, and 1993-1995, respectively) were as follows:
102nd Congress
Senate - 56 Democrats, 44 Republicans
House of Representatives - 267 Democrats, 167 Republicans
103rd Congress
Senate - 57 Democrats, 43 Republicans
House of Representatives - 258 Democrats, 176 Republicans
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell was an astonishing act of political cowardice. Telling gay men and women that they had to hide who they were in order to earn the privilege of getting shot at for our idiot military adventures was almost worse than open bigotry." - http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/49251/?page=2 - Butters66, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@cannedMango
Don't ask don't tell was passed when the Democrats had full control of the House and Senate, which was the case for the first two years of the Clinton years. Don't blame any success or failure on the Republicans here. - FluffyUnbound, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Patrick, I'm a Paul supporter, but I think he mishandled the question.
Based on the substance of his answer, he does not support Don't Ask Don't Tell. The policy he describes that he wants is not the current policy.
It would have been a lot cleaner and clearer if he had said, "No, I don't support the current policy, I support disciplining people only if their behavior is disruptive, and that goes for heterosexuals too."
See? Much neater. For one of the only times in the debates, Paul made a muddle of what he was trying to say. - Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Uploaded copy of the video in case it dies again:
http://sharebee.com/f86e10d7 - crazydiode, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9and he is JON Stewart not John
- Butters66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@ Cam_86
By other industrialized nations, all you really mean is western Europe. Is China really headed towards treating the poor better? They have a whole city whose population's job is to make buttons. Buttons. India? The reality is that these nations are treating their people terribly for economic gain that you and I in the west benefit from. Jobs are outsourced for a reason, and that reason is price. Europe is headed towards self destruction, and America will follow shortly as they build systems that can't compete with labor abroad. This will make China and India the leaders of the world by the end of this century. America will be as relevant as France or Germany is today. Get used to the idea.
Whine about how unfair things were in the past, and they were, but don't think you are going to fix it with government. Nothing will ever be fair when someone is willing to work for less. The riots that happened in France last year will continue, especially as that economy continues to stagnate. They have over 10% unemployment. In America we freak out when it goes from 2.5% to 3%. Even during the dark times called the 70's we didn't have 10% unemployment. 10% inflation, but not unemployment. - SPLASTiK, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17@Cam_86
It was "more government" that got us into the health care mess, not private health care. It has nothing to do with wild west mentaility or longing for.
The government is horribly mismanaged and corrupt as it is, I can't even begin to imagine what a "free" universal health care being tossed into the mix would be like. Hell, speaking of health, the FDA right now is considering allowing certain plants grown with pesticides to be allowed to be certified Organic. Gotta love the government looking out for you!
Our taxes are high enough and we can't even keep things like social security, medicare/medicaid ("free" healthcare for low income and senior citizens) afloat. And anyone can get a free trip to the ER already too, regardless of income.
America at one time was actually the envy of the world's health care system. People really only had insurance for major illnesses and paid small cash payments for everything else. It was cheap and efficient.
HMO Acts passed by our government forced businesses to provide health care to their employees and the tax codes allowed the businesses to write off the cost of health insurance premiums and not the employee to write off insurance costs. The combination of your employer with your health provider creates no incentive to keep costs low because there's no market incentive to cater to the actual health-care consumer.
This also caused an inflation of costs as doctors no longer have to care as much about the cost of the procedures because business is paying the bills, not the person seeing the doctor, and business doesn't really care about the costs when they can write it off on taxes.
Also contributing to higher medical costs are bills such as one that just failed in the last month or so allowing prescription drug importation from EU Countries, Canada and Japan who have strict quality regulations have lead to higher costs. Thanks Government for the help! - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@theroyalweman
I stand corrected. I don't know what the political climate was in 1993, but I'm disappointed that such a half-measure was put in place rather than standing up for people's rights. - Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@Dems-put-in-dont-ask-dont-tell people:
When Clinton put it in, it was a step forward in gay rights in the military. It's now nearly eight years later, and we need to take another step. - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@theflamingoking : "Roads? My state sales tax dollars go to fund local construction. My federal tax dollars go to build a bridge in an entirely different state that I will never see or use or benefit from."
Uhm, the general pattern is for Blue states to finance Red ones with federal funds for this sort of thing, dollar for dollar. I wonder if that means anything? :P
Your state in turn uses federal dollars for some of it's interstate roads and major bridges. Don't pretend it's all one-way. - betacmag4u, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Justin Elzie, USMC 1989 Marine of the Year -Gay ........ I want the best fighting for our country. What would the military do if everyone in the forces all came out at the same time and said they were gay..... end the war? Republicans are a joke. The policy should be called "don't ask, who cares?"
http://members.aol.com/co501boy/gutsandglory.htm - emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@Cam_86
Thanks for pointing out the fact that the government needs our tax dollars to operate. You've really educated a lot of people on here who thought otherwise [/sarcasm]
The point is that for the government to provide the services we NEED from them, it takes a LOT less money than we're currently giving them. Over a quarter of our federal tax dollars are going towards the war, with nearly another 10% going towards debt incurred from other wars and a substantial amount also going towards veteran's benefits.
All together, past and present military spending takes about 40 cents of every dollar from federal income tax. Add this to broken programs like welfare, social security, and countless other things that I shouldn't be paying for (as well as the gross mismanagement of funds in VALID programs) and you're a fool if you can't see why people want tax cuts. It's more than just about spending less money, it's about the government using what we give them more responsibly. - SquigglyP, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@ Cam_86 and the rest of the people who don't get Ron Paul:
You cannot look at the issues one at a time and say whether you agree with that or disagree with the other, etc. Economically, these issues are all interwoven. Yeah, he wants to cut taxes to the extreme and even do away with the IRS. But guess what. You'll STILL be paying taxes. The taxes you pay will be lowered, and they will go directly to your area. Yeah, he DOES want to get rid of a lot of the Federal laws and regulations. He wants the STATES to have the power. Those laws aren't just going to disappear forever. They will be replaced by State legislation and will reflect the citizens of the State. Yes, social services will be 'gutted' as some people have described it, but it's because the States, once again, will have the power to decide what to do with social services, and will be able to assess their own situations and take much more precise action to fix social/econimic issues.
By looking at the issues one at a time it would be easy to find some you don't agree with out of context, but what he is really trying to do is give the power BACK to the states and back to the people so that you are free to live your life as you choose. You will have more power to make change in your community and state. A state that's typically more liberal would be able to enact most if not all of their liberal ideas, and conservative states would be able to do likewise. The states would be set up much more like small countries with an overarching framework of an idea - the constitution - to guide them. The federal governement would enfoce that document and deal with international issues. That's all it SHOULD do.
What i can't figure out is why people seem to be fine with giving up their rights, money and morality and allowing some huge multi-headed beast of a government tell them how to live. People claim that Bush is using Terrorism to scare people into voting republican, but all of the people brainwashed by the two-party system are afraid to have the freedom to make decisions for themselves. - haggie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6i don't care if you sodomize zoo animals, if you are willing to go to iraq for our country, you are hired!
- 9Digits, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Gavron: I'd rather have my head in the sand than in my ass, which is where you ***** Ron Paul supporters have yours. Your statement also assumes that I block out everything. No - I just block out ***** retards who spam this site with a bunch of circle-jerk BS.
Now ***** off, you little *****. - kelbear, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2I like Ron Paul for many of his positions, but I simply do not agree with his stance on many monetary issues. I feel that the spending is not being efficiently allocated to areas that maximize the money's utility for the people.
I do not however feel that there shouldn't be spending. Just the minimum necessary, with the utmost efficiency in allocation. I believe that there are indeed jobs that are best funded and operated by a government rather than private organizations. The problem is that too many issues have been lumped into this category and it has generated waste.
In some, Ron Paul is spot on with me on the issues, but far too conservative in terms of budget IMO. - kelbear, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1I like Ron Paul for many of his positions, but I simply do not agree with his stance on many monetary issues. I feel that the spending is not being efficiently allocated to areas that maximize the money's utility for the people.
I do not however feel that there shouldn't be spending. Just the minimum necessary, with the utmost efficiency in allocation. I believe that there are indeed jobs that are best funded and operated by a government rather than private organizations. The problem is that too many issues have been lumped into this category and it has generated waste.
In some, Ron Paul is spot on with me on the issues, but far too conservative in terms of budget IMO. I d - kelbear, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1I like Ron Paul for many of his positions, but I simply do not agree with his stance on many monetary issues. I feel that the spending is not being efficiently allocated to areas that maximize the money's utility for the people.
I do not however feel that there shouldn't be spending. Just the minimum necessary, with the utmost efficiency in allocation. I believe that there are indeed jobs that are best funded and operated by a government rather than private organizations. The problem is that too many issues have been lumped into this category and it has generated waste.
In some, Ron Paul is spot on with me on the issues, but far too conservative in terms of budget IMO. I don't - kelbear, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1I like Ron Paul for many of his positions, but I simply do not agree with his stance on many monetary issues. I feel that the spending is not being efficiently allocated to areas that maximize the money's utility for the people.
I do not however feel that there shouldn't be spending. Just the minimum necessary, with the utmost efficiency in allocation. I believe that there are indeed jobs that are best funded and operated by a government rather than private organizations. The problem is that too many issues have been lumped into this category and it has generated waste.
In some, Ron Paul is spot on with me on the issues, but far too conservative in terms of budget IMO. I don't have - pitlord, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Fred Thompson will eat Ron Paul's face, crush up his bones, roll him up into a nice, fat, Havannah tobacco leaf and SMOKE THAT BLUNT.
A blunt, Ron, might be something you want to think about.
^^ - jd603, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What people don't realize is that we actually give much more than 33% of our income to taxes, combine all the taxes you pay on everything, its more like half our money or more. Also, a majority of the federal income tax goes to pay off interest on loans our government has taken out to fund our operations. The rest goes to operating the IRS (collections department) so they can force money out of us... it's a ruthless system.
Ron Paul wants to "legalize" things properly and reform the system. He knows he cant just wipe out the IRS over-night, but top economists know that there are severe problems with the current system and I'm sure Ron will at least work to address things , other politicians don't even question it.
Also, school funding and many other things come from property taxes and the like, not the federal income tax, so to think you cannot "phase-out" the federal income tax is incorrect, it all goes back to paper-money and the "privately owned" federal reserve system that the central bankers control. It's not as simple as 1,2,3 , watch "The Money Masters" on google video , it is a 3 hour documentary but explains how our current system came about and you'll see more of what is really going on.
Ron isn't going to change everything and make everything perfect, but he DOES understand this stuff very well, is open-minded, intelligent and it seems he cannot be bought by these corporations, lobbyists don't even bother talking to him any more because they know they have no chance. :-)
Honestly, even if Ron seems a little too "different" or "extreme" , I think it's exactly what we need, and he's smart enough not to make drastic changes that will hurt us, there's safe ways to test the waters for these things. Also, even if Ron was president, he's not always going to get his way, so he should do a good job to balance out this rampant spending and bureaucracy. - tb0n3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Oh man, I love it when people tell me that my income tax pays for roads and schools and the police. It gives me another opportunity to explain to them the difference between state and federal taxes, and how the federal government gets *ALL* of the money it actually spends from the Federal Reserve, a private bank, which creates that money out of thin air.
- ramiro, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1.dddd
- antineocon, on 10/11/2007, -22/+10I also noticed how even though Jon Stewart seemed impressed a couple days earlier with Ron Paul he failed to mention him once in this satire piece. WTF.
- R34C7, on 10/11/2007, -8/+55Not including Paul in this particular satire was probably a good thing.
- logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -6/+53it's not the daily shows job to praise politics it's their job to ridicule them. If paul would said something wrong they would have shown him. It's a compliment not an omittance again it's not a news show.
- colincornaby, on 10/11/2007, -10/+20"I also noticed how even though Jon Stewart seemed impressed a couple days earlier with Ron Paul he failed to mention him once in this satire piece. WTF."
He didn't seem impressed with Paul imo. At first he highlighted his anti-war stance, but afterwards, he just took him to town with all the views you don't commonly hear about him, such as his anti social programs views. It almost was like Stewart started the interview by acknowledging his anti war platform, but then was trying to show the stuff that Paul believes in that is less popular.
I don't think Stewart likes Ron Paul's platform. - 3tcp, on 10/11/2007, -29/+11Ron Paul is already a joke, including him in a satire piece would just be redundant.
- Lowry, on 10/11/2007, -7/+28"I don't think Stewart likes Ron Paul's platform."
@ colin
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=87974
Did you even watch the interview? He says Ron Paul seems to be a man of consistent principle integrity.
He asks him a few to the point questions as well. I think he is secretly rooting for the Doctor. :) - revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15What Stewart said was that even if people don't support him, you can't deny that Paul is consistent. Just because he respects him, doesn't mean he supports him.
- brianboyko, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Yes, but the Doctor isn't eligible. First of all, he's an illegal alien. From Gallifrey.
- borninda818, on 10/11/2007, -4/+47http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE9H-PqvU3w
youtube - megaHurtz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+53Why hasn't anyone mentioned Stewart's summation of the debate?
"The only thing worse than another terrorist attack is a gay hero stopping it."
Now thats a campaign slogan I can get behind!
.
.
.
No pun intended.- revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30God loves us all...
...as a friend.
- revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30God loves us all...
- Wonkanobi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+51I'm sorry, but for my money, the funniest part of the whole debate was when the candidates were asked how they would use GWB if they were elected, and Thommy Thompson said "I would send him on a lecture circuit talkting to young people about honesty and integrity". PRICELESS.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24One of the candidates, when asked that question, answered jokingly "Well, I certainly wouldn't use him as UN ambassador." Followed by a solid minute of dead silence. The candidate then went on a rant about how awesome Bush is. It may in fact have been Thompson, I'm not sure.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Thompson don't want Bush to even step in the white house lawn.
because that's what rove told thompson to do aftered flaking on bush. - 3tcp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The biggest thing that Tommy Thomson has going for him is that he was smart enough to get the ***** off of that sinking ship... like Colin Powell was. McCain, Giuliani and most other republicans have been kissing bush's ass even after it became clear what kind of a president he was going to be.
Just too bad that they didn't campaign against bush in 2004, would have saved the rest of us from a hell of a lot of *****. Though we would have had a whole different set of problems with Kerry in the white house. - brightmidnight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@bacon skoda:
That's actually Tom Tancredo who said that Bush wouldn't be allowed to darken the door of the White House....Karl Rove told him that because he disagrees with Bush on immigration issues.
I respected Tancredo for being stone cold honest with that statement.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24One of the candidates, when asked that question, answered jokingly "Well, I certainly wouldn't use him as UN ambassador." Followed by a solid minute of dead silence. The candidate then went on a rant about how awesome Bush is. It may in fact have been Thompson, I'm not sure.
- mc2600, on 10/11/2007, -10/+28It seems like none of these guys actually has the balls to say anything different from one another. So far, only Ron Paul has said things that make sense and have taken some what of a different stance than the rest of these losers. I say that if Ron Paul isn't the candidate for the Ele's, the Donkey's will give them a good swift kick to their "Barney" franks. I still say, bring on the third party candidates, they are the ones who will actually have something new and interesting to say. Change is good.
- M80mayhem, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13"I still say, bring on the third party candidates, they are the ones who will actually have something new and interesting to say"
Ron Paul is a Libertarian through and through. He's only a "Republican" because...well...when is the last time you've ever seen someone from the Libertarian Party or Independent Party or Green Party get elected? - freexe, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Is it me, or are they all trying to lose? it's like they think the country is ***** and none of them want to stand out enough and have to fix all the ***** they are in. If they run and come in a good second or third place they stand more chance or winning in 4 more years.
- sasquatch20, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I agree. Ron Paul is the best choice for republican nominee.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence.
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency,
from dependence back into bondage."
We are near this point now unless Ron Paul's ideas are used.
If you haven't looked at his positions, see them here ronpaul2008.com
- M80mayhem, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13"I still say, bring on the third party candidates, they are the ones who will actually have something new and interesting to say"
- RationalAntaxia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5is there video of the whole debate at all?
- manifestdata, on 10/11/2007, -26/+8Why would they post the whole debate when they can just take snippets out of it and totally misconstrue the meanings. This is a lot easier than real journalism.
- danmcinerney, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22Well, obviously The Daily Show is a comedy show and does not do any jour---
You know what? Forget it. Believe whatever stupid thing you want. - derkaas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/06/nh.gop.debate.video/index.html
- RationalAntaxia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3thanks for the video!!
- hasbeen, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Uh, I believe the question was whether or not there is a video online of the whole debate. However, I'm not sure why anyone would want to watch it. I've had enough from just watching the short daily show clip. Also, I don't see how you could intentionally misconstrue the meaning of most of those responses. All of them in the clip are irrational religious nutjobs that spew the same ***** that the current president does. You'd think you'd deviate from the policies that a failing president initiated. I really like the question about whether they think Iraq was a good idea given what they know today. It's a really simple question that aims to test the rationality of the candidates. All of them in the clip failed miserably, which is quite scary. Like Jon pointed out, "20/20 blindness".
- epyon180, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9 @manifestdata
You ***** dumb-ass, I watched the whole debate live on CNN.com and Jon Stewart got it EXACTLY right. Maybe if you actually bothered to watch the debate you wouldn't be making an idiot out of your self.
- Alegoo92, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2How come there always getting new ones ripped?
- PleaseJustDie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1because the old ones are already torn.
- ophilye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2the old ones are always very loose & disgusting. No one ever wants the old ones.
- inajeep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I assumed they were full and needed new ones ripped.
- stakepie, on 10/11/2007, -18/+4Who cares about gays? They account for hardly nobody.
- revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -17/+6Not Ron Paul.
- Lowry, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10Revenge7 please look at how he really stands rather than spewing lies. He believes everyone is a free individual to make any choices they like.
http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/06/ron-paul-and-gay-rights/ - revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3@Lowry
But he doesn't think that the federal government should decide on gay marriage, even though it is a matter of civil rights. - revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Edit timed out before I could finish.
He also voted FOR banning gay adoptions in DC.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm - healthydose, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6 To: revenge7, cam86 and various and sundry others. You people just don't get it. But, you really aren't to be blamed I guess. The dumbafication system has done it's job remarkably well. Producing "graduates" who can read, but--not understand, listen, but--not hear, think, but not--be able to reason, can argue, but--not debate, are crass, but--not witty, can see, but--can't differentiate.
The reason you and many others despise Ron Paul so much is because what he stands for is so utterly foreign to you. You have been led to believe that all ills of society can, and should be cured by the Government. So of course when anybody goes against that--It just happens to be Ron right now-- you become incensed at how could a person be so cold hearted, or unfeeling, or his economic policy is unsound, etc.
You and your minions mindlessly recount a litany of YES and NO votes, without having the slightest notion of what those pieces of legislation actually entail. When a bill is being discussed Ron doesn't hold his finger to the air to see how he should vote. NO, he holds the Constitution in his hand to see if it squares to the Constitution, if it does then YES if not then NO. Many times a Constitutional bill has an unconstitutional rider attached to it, he still votes NO. Most politicians, to curry public favor, vote to garner votes and the Constitution be dammed. That's one of the biggest reasons you cannot understand him....he does what is right not what is popular, but wrong!
Just because we are "AMERICA" do you think that makes us immune to history? I bet the Romans at the 300 year mark thought they would continue on as well. Rome fell from the inside out. Their internal degeneracy rotted out their moral foundation, in all of it's ramifications, which made them easy prey. Their military expenditures increased even as the empire shrunk. Gainfully employed people decreased as the public dole swelled. Get the picture?
Cam86 Are you really that uninformed about which taxes do what? ALL the taxes collected by the irs provide not one benefit or service! The irs is merely the collection agency for the Federal Reserve; the irs collected taxes pay the interest on the national debt....that's it. Gas tax(licensing fees,tags plates)=roads, Property taxes=schools, police, firemen, library, water district All lawful business tax=military(it's not enough though that's why we borrow from the Chinese for our current war) Import-export duties and excise taxes=welfare programs. SO, eliminating the irs would NOT harm us in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, all those illegally confiscated Federal Reserve Notes would now be in our hands. Read the Grace Report why don't you.
Haven't you read what Senator McFadden and Lindbergh said about the Fed. R. no of course not. How about the Imperial Russian Navy being put at Abe Lincolns disposal during the Civil War, no, not that either huh. How about the real reason for the American Revolution. Benjamin Franklin gave the real reason, but we, in our unhistory books, are told a lie to cover that reason. What did Pres. J. Garfield say two months before his assassination? Why were THREE assassination attempts made on Pres. Andrew Jackson? What were the two reasons that made Abe L. assassination inevitable? What Presidential order did JFK sign--LBJ immediately canceled upon assuming the Presidency--that necessitated his assassination? What did Pres. W. Wilson say it was that made him a "most unhappy man"? IF Ron Paul does make it into the Presidency I will go out and buy lots of black ribbon.
SO, to all of you who really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, HATE Ron Paul........vote for him...yes I'm serious. The policies he will implement will get him assassinated. In fact, if it looks like he will win, he most likely will meet his demise BEFORE he can take the White House. I DARE ALL RON PAUL HATERS TO VOTE FOR HIM; PUT YOUR VOTE WHERE YOUR HATE IS. This could be your slogan for all you Gov. lovers. A VOTE FOR RON IS A VOTE FOR HIS ELIMINATION. I can hear the chcants already.
- revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I don't hate Paul. He is the best republican candidate, and better than most of the democrats. There are just other candidates that seem they would do a better job.
By the way, nice WALL OF TEXT. - brightmidnight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Revenge7--
He didn't vote against banning gay adoptions. That was an amendment to a separate bill. Plus, it wasn't included in the final bill. - 9Digits, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Jesus Christ. Talk about some lame-assed Ron Paul fanboys here.
Say hi to his buddies over at Stormfront!
You people are a joke.
- ivansusanin, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24it's JON
- franklink44, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Get over it. Are you going to point out every typo made.
And who keeps digging Merriam-Webster anyway???
- franklink44, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Get over it. Are you going to point out every typo made.
- samsims, on 10/11/2007, -7/+35Ron Paul is excellent, but too smart to be president. If he becomes president, how can special interest groups like AIPAC get America to fight a war for another country's sake?
We will need major reforms to the way lobbies and the media function to get the best suited person to be president.- Nizza, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17I'm not sure why you were dug down, because I think you're quite right. I might change "too smart to be president" to "too honest", however.
- samsims, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5I forgot to mention the fact that US casualties hit 3,500 precious citizens today...a very sad milestone...and too high of a price for any achievement...condolences to the families of these soldiers...:(
- DaedalusX, on 10/11/2007, -18/+19Bush and/or Republican bashing on digg?
What a new and interesting concept!!!!- danmcinerney, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15Guuuuys!!! Stop saying mean things about the people who run the country!!!
- rabidjester, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7When will the oppression end?!
Man up, darling.
- notque, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Too bad Jon rips Gravel any chance he gets, and hasn't had him on. We shouldn't act like Jon is doing anything but adding humor to the debate. We have to work ourselves for the candidates we want.
- QuantumLo0p, on 10/11/2007, -11/+0john who?!
- Acura666, on 10/11/2007, -17/+1http://digg.com/world_news/Suspected_Killer_Edwin_Hall_s_MySpace_Page
Killer Edwin Hall's MySpace Page - urbannomad23, on 10/11/2007, -16/+9this was an amazing segment. one of his best lately. HE'S BAAACKK!!!!
everyone elect a democrat...these republicans are a little loonie, if you know what i mean.- BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10opps :) Said the 'D' word on Libertarian-spammed Digg. Dugg down to death you go!
Seriously, Democrats have some great candidates this season, and they never get the slightest coverage on Digg. Some of them even have a chance of making it past the primaries, unlike Ron Paul.
And given that the country is so polarized that Jesus could be running for the Libertarian party and still lose, well, you get the idea. - dumbblah, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4they're all a little loonie
- JAVandiver, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13@ BrandonMills
No the Democrats do not! H-rod is quite possibly the worst candidate ever, and Barak Obama is just a poster child for the minority vote... I mean a junior Senator form Illinois(one of the most socialist states in the country!) come on! The only reason anyone is going to vote for a Democrat is simply because they hate Republicans. Period. - Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3@JAVandier:
"No the Democrats do not! H-rod is quite possibly the worst candidate ever"
Agreed
"and Barak Obama is just a poster child for the minority vote... I mean a junior Senator form Illinois(one of the most socialist states in the country!) come on!"
Wow. That's quite honestly the least logical dismissal of a candidate I've ever read. Congratulations.
"The only reason anyone is going to vote for a Democrat is simply because they hate Republicans. Period."
Even if that were true, these days it's enough to win the presidency. Sorry, but republicans more are reviled then they've ever been, even among the typically 'red' states.
- BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10opps :) Said the 'D' word on Libertarian-spammed Digg. Dugg down to death you go!
- fej64, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4uhhhhhhhhhhh Ron paul anyone?
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Enough.
- Klowner, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25anti-immigrant != anti-illegal-immigrant
Nobody is anti-immigrant, and if they are, they're major assbags.- AhmedF, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Err ... one person said 'stop all immigration' (and that includes legal).
- reddevil3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+30Didn't you watch the video? Tancredo said "stop legal immigration" and "cut ties with your family back home".
As a legal immigrant, I found it offensive....what the ***** is that guy thinking? At least McCain and Giuliani called him out on that. - Klowner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11So, Tancredo is a major assbag.. I still need to see the video. I almost find it hard to believe anyone would suggest that, this whole country consists of immigrants. I have friends that are legal immigrants, and it wasn't easy for them to get here and it's not fair to expect illegals get a happy welcome because they're too lazy to follow the rules.
- Crosshare, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I'm from Colorado I have no idea who this assbag is. I don't even think he qualifies as a 3rd tier candidate.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Klowner, you haven't been on digg much have you.
people here claims the consitution protects citizens ONLY.
legal immigrants are not citizens. tourist are not citizens.
diplomats are not citizens. visa workers are not citizens.
legal aliens are not citizens. student visas are not citizens. - mdowney00, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Thats basically what he said, granted it was a misspeak, but thats what Jon Stewart capitalizes on.... have you ever watched the show?
- Mier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That's right Bacon.
Like it or not if you haven't sworn the oath of alligence to the USA then you are NOT a citizen. That doesn't mean you don't have rights, legal immigrants have some protections but they live here at the good graces of the People of the USA. Illegals have no such protections, non-citizens have no such protections, that is the way it is. It's not hard to grasp this concept as if you don't then what is the point in being a citizen.
Jon Stewart is the last man on this earth that should be talking about candidates and wether they are worthy of office. Try to think for yourself and do it while you have your pocketbook open. Ron Paul has some things right and others wrong, unfortuantely he has a few more right than wrong.
As for all you leftists that keep pushing Ron Paul up on the charts. There's a reason he's not garnering support and it's not because he doesn't have face time.
- JimmyTheClam, on 10/11/2007, -15/+9So taking a strong and principled against Illegal immigration is anti-immigrant?
John Stewart, I already knew you were a disingenuous tool, but come on...- Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6No, one candidate said he wants to stop ALL immigration.
Your country is nothing but a bunch of mongrel immigrants, hypocritical bastard. - damiam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Those aren't Stewart's words, that's the blog author. Don't slam Stewart for something he didn't say.
Also, Tancredo would halt legal immigration, so the blogger is actually right. - Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Stewart was mocking Tancredo for his desire to 'stop legal immigration' - which, even if he misspoke, is still worthy of mockery.
Me, I don't see what's wrong with having an open borders agreement with Mexico; a good quarter of our nationwide unskilled labor comes from there.
Got a problem with it? They taking your jerbs? Well, since you have the advantage of being able to speak english (and thus, the ability to learn a trade with more ease than your Mexican counterparts in the US), then stop being a lazy ass and learn a damned trade.
I hear there's a huge shortage of welders (for example), and that the pay is excellent. Go apprentice. And quit bitching about Mexican immigrants, at the very least. - JimmyTheClam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@ramble
Lick my balls.
Tancredo said he would support a moratorium on immigration for a period of three to five years.
I see nothing wrong with that. The US is not OBLIGATED to accept ANY immigrants. There is no hypocrisy in giving those already here time to assimilate.
If Hispanic culture were so awesome, then why are they emigrating here at all? Shouldn't their beautiful, honest and hardworking people have made their homelands a veritable paradise by now?
Finally, Mexico and all Central American countries are grossly over represented in America's immigration statistics for the last 40 years.
They have EARNED a much longer moratorium period through their past abuse of our immigration laws. I think 20 years would be much more appropriate with any new immigrants from Mexico or Central America.
- Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6No, one candidate said he wants to stop ALL immigration.
- flyneye, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7Not to detract from John Stewart the comedian but,
I've never seen a T.V. personality that knew ***** from tuna fish about politics.They tend to just regurgitate stuff they heard from their favorite liberal/humanitarian/activist who also cannot differentiate dung from flounder.
Sorry,but this includes Newsclowns too.
So,where do we slake our thirst for punditry?
WE DON'T! Its literally one ifomercial after another for some political party or other (republicrats,makes no difference,they want the same thing,dems will just lie to appear humanitarian,reps make no such allusions.
My advice,forget them both and vote Libertarian.- Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I am a libertarian who supports many so called Democrats and Republicans in addition to many others and what you said is a broad generalization. Judge people on individual merit. Divisory politics is too easy to misconstrue. If you support someone, then support them, it is too easy to bash the group.
- combustion8, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5John Stewart rips them a new one? that's like a yorky terrier going after a pit bull.
- typicalusername, on 10/11/2007, -10/+14Hah! I love how everyone says that John Stewart is the authority on anything. It's fake news people. It's done to garnish ratings and to make people $. I love watching Stewart and Colbert, but to anything they say seriously or that it's factual, is a gross mistake. It's said to make you laugh, nothing more. You can sum it up by saying Republicans = Against something someone likes. Democrats = Against nothing that they think you like.
Who do you guys want for president, Hillary Clinton? Or as I like to call her, the "Democratic Cheerleader". Almost every Liberal in the country is swinging the Obama way, and I can't honestly say he'll be too terrible. However, a politician is a politician the world over. They're all full of *****.
Which is why Stewart and Colbert are popular. The thing that's wrong with Stewart is that his show has swinged way to the Liberal angle the last couple of years. If you're gonna make fun of Politicians, make fun of them all, because they all suck. Not a Republican bash fest...- AhmedF, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Faux relates to them being a legitimate news journalism service, not about what they report.
The only time they make 'fake' news is when it is overly obvious (from Colbert's medicinal treatments to Stewart's Jewish mayor of NYC). - Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Sometimes it can be tough but the you have to get used to the smell of *****. Patience is a virtue.
- JAVandiver, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4@typicalusername
Holy hell! Rational thought on digg? Someone actually making sense and not just parroting everyone else! The apocalypse is neigh! - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2typicalusername, I believe there have been scientific polls proving that the partisan split on the Daily Show is 60%/40% - hardly a "Republican bash-fest."
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Blasphemer! How DARE you tarnish the holy name of Stewart! He speaks only ultimate unfalsifiable truth! He is the holy soothsayer of the politicial sphere of the heavens, and you have now DAMNED yourself to the outermost circle of HELL - where all those who have sinned through ignorance of HIS Word are kept.
Naw, seriously. Most people get it man. It's just that Jon hits the nail on the head from time to time.
- AhmedF, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Faux relates to them being a legitimate news journalism service, not about what they report.
- sugarazor, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17@colin
"He didn't seem impressed with Paul imo. At first he highlighted his anti-war stance, but afterwards, he just took him to town with all the views you don't commonly hear about him, such as his anti social programs views. It almost was like Stewart started the interview by acknowledging his anti war platform, but then was trying to show the stuff that Paul believes in that is less popular."
That's what any good interviewer does. You throw the softballs first to make them comfortable so they won't completely fly off the handle when you challenge them. And it's funny that you think because Stewart took him to task that he automatically "doesn't like Ron Paul's platform." Stewart was doing what all respectable journalists should do, not letting anyone (even a precious internet darling like Ron Paul) get a free ride in an interview.
Ron Paul has some fantastic views, but he also has some that are way out there. Cutting federal funding for NASA (just using that since it was brought up earlier) would be stupid. There are just some things that are too big for the private sector - space exploration is one of those. The government should not be totally hands off from things like Global Warming, AIDS research, or things like space exploration. The private sector (concerned strictly with profits) cannot possibly pick up that kind of slack. And really, do you want the private sector funding research for life threatening diseases so when they do actually find a cure, they can charge you an obscene amount of money for it (even more than they already do)?- Xevec, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I would like to respond to your ron paul statement.
First off, if a company is concerned with profits...they will do A MUCH BETTER job putting out a great product than the government...which is only concerned about votes. Ask yourself this: How does a company make money? Where does this money come from? Most likely, it will be consumers(even though there is business to business transactions...if you are appealing to businesses..then those businesses TO YOU are your consumers). You can only make money if the people BUYING your product are satisfied with it. I have never heard of any company that can make millions by having a huge base of customers NOT liking their product.
You make reference to the drug industry....and about their "high prices." Have you ever seen how much time it takes to research a new drug? It's a minimum of 10 years! That is 10 years of putting in millions of dollars without making any money on it. Most of this comes from FDA regulations....which is used to keep you safe. If a particular miracle drug has a 80% chance of curing cancer...but a 1% chance of causing a stroke...is it considered "safe?" I don't know the FDA regulations on that particular example...but I would bet this sort of drug would not be allowed to be sold on the market..because of that 1% chance of stroke. But about the high prices.....that is only if they have a patent(government control). The patent guarantees nothing. It assumes that people are desperate enough for the cure. That's not always true. I look at other goods. Not everyone ran out to buy plasma screen TV's when they first came out. I even bet not everyone quickly rushed out to buy anti-biotics when they first came out. Look at even new technology in hospitals. They aren't widely used. They take time. If you want to see lower drug prices....simply remove the FDA, and the patents on drugs...and then you will see lower prices(and safer drugs. The FDA isn't the only source to know if a drug is safe. It's called doctors).
Also, what gives you the idea that the private market can't pick up that kind of slack? Sure they can. Where the hell do you think the government gets its money? FROM THE PRIVATE MARKET! So the market DOES have that kind of power.
With companies charging "high - BabaRamDass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"There are just some things that are too big for the private sector - space exploration is one of those."
*cough*SpaceShipOne*cough*Virgin Galactic*cough*
If there's a demand for something, there will be some guy in the private sector trying to make a buck to meet that demand. Space exploration is no exception, as proven by SpaceShipOne: there was a demand for a vehicle that could go into space and do it again within 2 weeks. And lo-n-behold the private sector met the demand with flying colors.
NASA's main affairs deal with doing experiments for private companies. I'd hardly call that general welfare.
- Xevec, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I would like to respond to your ron paul statement.
- Usernamesarefun, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11...it's "Jon"
...not "John"- directedition, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3.... it's "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz"
.... not "Jon Stewart"- sayuwantarevolu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Jon is still short for Jonathan.
John is just for John, not short for anything.
(Trust me, I know a whole slew of Jons and Johns)
- sayuwantarevolu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Jon is still short for Jonathan.
- amoirae, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Wrong.
He legally had his name changed to Jon Stewart. Schmuck.
- directedition, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3.... it's "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz"
- erikhensarling, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Digg hates which more: republicans or ps3?
- BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Depends on if the PS3 gets a price cut this E3
- typicalusername, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Yeah, let's start that debate! I LOVE my PS3! Go BluRay! For all you iPhone sheep out there...get on the Sony Bandwagon!
- sailor, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18Democrats love everyones....vote. Of course they have desire to cure the ills of society because that is where the votes are...poor, uneducated, minorities...etc. but really, what have they done on any of these issues.
Stop blasting the Republicans...until you find out what your favorite politician is going to do for you!- JAVandiver, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8Give you more welfare so that you do not have to make anything out of yourself!
- dwiezel, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12You are right on the money!
Socialism is a bankrupt governmental system!
It keeps the poor and downtrodden and the unmotivated and lazy in the status quo!
Maintaining that status quo is social engineering! - Mier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Wow. Common Sense isn't so common. Yet I find some in the first comment and in the top two replies. Bravo there is hope for our Republic.
- EggoTrip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7What exactly is real news if it appears on TV?
- Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Thank you for saying that. I mean it.
- dwiezel, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6I have to admit that at times I really enjoy "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart although it is not as good as it used to be when Stephen Colbert and others were on the show.
However, many times I have to shut it off because he goes over the top and parody becomes an extreme insult to my opinions or the beliefs that I hold sacred.
The power of the clicker rules with respect to video and audio media and if you do not like what someone has to say, go elsewhere or shut it off.
This is one example. Jon Stewart may have his opinion but I do not agree that there are no good republican candidates. These are intelligent and accomplished individuals that are willing to make great sacrifices to serve this country in a capacity that they ever have in the past. All of them have some merit.
I am an independent and refuse to align with a party so that I can focus on the best candidates for any political race. Or, in the case of the Presidency of United States of America, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates -- the team as it were.
Jon Stewart, as funny as he and his team can be at times, does not hold water to any of these candidates and would never be able to successfully hold such a high office -- he would have plenty of people mocking him and his foibles if he tried.- DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12"I have to shut it off because he goes over the top and parody becomes an extreme insult to my opinions or the beliefs that I hold sacred."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THANK GOD FOR JON STEWART!!!!!!!!
I guess some people just can't handle the truth.
How ironic that Americans have to watch a Comedy channel to get the news.
"a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't."
http://www.freepress.net/news/4765
”Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/
Also, funny that after Stewart appeared on Crossfire and outed them for not really being a debate show but just another right-wing extremist circus that is destroying American, CNN cancelled the show.
Thanks for that Jon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmZkw169xEI - Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Is Jon running for office?
- DryMaltExtract, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3The beliefs you hold sacred? Just hurry up and say he insulted your assinine religion and your faith is so weak that you cannot take a hit or two because it hurts your feelings oh so much.
Stop being such a wuss god-boy. - dwiezel, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@dildooreilly
Its parody, not news! - EvansHall, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Dildooreilly:
I have to agree with dwiezel here. I've never been a fan of Stewart, because I despise cynicism. His audience is fairly well educated, educated enough to see the ***** going on, but don't seem to do much about it. I am basing this on dozens of fellow 20-somethings who I know. They watch the show, think he's God, but yet they don't vote or participate in the process (i.e., try writing your congressman if you're pissed off, you'll be surprised the type of response you'll get). In my opinion, Daily Show watchers know what's going on in the world, but don't do anything about it. Maybe this is true of young people in general.
Oh, and your comparison with the O'Reilly Factor, what does that prove, beside the fact that people who watch the Daily Show have received more education than ABSOLUTE ***** MORONS? - dwiezel, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3@drymaltextract
Are you secretly in love with John Stewart?
Do you want to have his babies?
If I disagree with some of his extreme views, I will just shut him off! Just like you!
What's the matter? Are you blaming GOD for the ills in your life? What? You didn't get that puppy you wanted in third grade even though you prayed and prayed and prayed for it and now you are shaking your fist at GOD?
Get a life! You are the wuss boy! Be a man, have some balls!
- DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12"I have to shut it off because he goes over the top and parody becomes an extreme insult to my opinions or the beliefs that I hold sacred."
- DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Wouldnt Paul and Gravel be great together? Maybe have a chance to save our country from becoming a full blown plutocracy/corporatocracy.
Too bad their are different party affiliates.- texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Actually, I think a Paul/Richardson ticket would be a solid combination...especially when you consider how Richardson turned the state of New Mexico around by cutting taxes *and* spending.
- diggerphelps, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Who is this "John" Stewart person?
- DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2""Who is this "John" Stewart person?""
------------------------------------------------------
Hes the opposite of that Bill O'lielly guy, the guy who likes to shove things up his @ss.
I mean, who is the one who got caught rodgering himself in the butt with a dildo? Whenever I see this guy now an image appears of O'Reilly with his legs kicked up over his head pounding his keester with a "Mandingo Model 12"
I don't even remember what he said before I turned the channel.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html
- DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2""Who is this "John" Stewart person?""
- Look4Truth, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8Ron Paul FTW! The NWO-controlled media can try to silence him but WE ARE STILL HERE AND WATCHING!
- Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The best way to endorse your candidate is sometimes to say less, I like Dr. Paul but I can hear tin foil hat comments coming your way and that is too bad. Offer some substance which a soccer mom can appreciate and your ideas will go far in our public discourse. Report his stance on issues, what his actions will be as president and so forth. Cheer leading is for looking at cheerleaders.
- Szat, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3All the candidates suck. We're just going to have another 2000 and 2004 election. :-(
- an0nymous, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1bury
- fuze44, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5It's nice of Digg to color code the comments for us. Blue for Dems, grey for Republicans.
- Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1uh...dokay.....
- PleaseJustDie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Your comment is gray on my screen, you must be a Republican.
- skyteria, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Democracy at work?
- davewashere, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8A private program will never take the place of NASA. The startup costs are just way too high for any company to take that kind of risk. That's why government funding is not always bad. The government has the money to spend on programs like NASA that may or may not bring an economic profit. Private companies would never spend billions of dollars developing such a risky program, because their motive should always be profit. The government's motive could be to protect its citizens or enhance our understanding of the universe, in hopes that it could benefit us in the future, perhaps decades or even a hundred years from now.
I'm sure NASA is "in the red" by tens of billions of dollars over its lifetime. That fails to take into account the various scientific achievements that were accomplished through NASA funding. Many NASA-funded projects have led to very profitable businesses in the private sector.
Government projects are often bloated, but they also sometimes develop ideas that the private sector would deem "too risky". Take the internet, for example. The internet is a product of US tax dollars. Would a business in the private sector have been willing to spend millions of dollars on establishing communications between computers so that scientists could share their precious datasets? Of course not. The government was, and then the private sector found more profitable ways to use that technology. How much is the internet worth today? It's a number so high it would be pointless trying to figure it out. That's where smart government funding pays off. It doesn't just feed those who beg for food, it seeds growth in the economy through projects that the private sector would deem foolish.- DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Umm, spaceshipone?
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The internet? You might get some disagreement about the importance of the US:
"Tim Berners-Lee invented the information superhighway known as the Web, which allows anyone with a computer and browser to use the Internet. Famously, he created it in his spare time, and gave it away for free."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/31/britain.honors.webman/
and "is the inventor of the World Wide Web, " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee - howitzeral, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1And do you think spaceship one would have been possible without all the accomplishments NASA has made? Yes, it probably would have happened, but just 200 years from now or so.
- healthydose, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Thomas Edison, Alexander G. Bell, Robert Fulton, Wright brothers, Issac Watts, Farley, Tesla, Samuel Morse, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, McCormick, John Deere. These and THOUSANDS of others invented things without nanny gov. Many did it on their own, others had garnered business sponsorship. Just because the gov. doesn't do something DOES NOT mean it won't get done. If there is a need.....somebody will find a way to fill that need and make money in the process.
- or3n, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wait -- didn't Al Gore invent the Internet?
- fadetoone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Wait, wait, wait. Are there any tolerable Democrats?
- DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Gravel, and possibly Obama...possibly. But I'd MUCH rather Ron Paul won.
- Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11up Davewashere.
Does anyone know for sure that Ron Paul is against funding NASA?- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I found this:
http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html
But it's suspiciously light on details, has a few spelling errors, and nobody else seems to have that text on google, so I don't know whether it's trustworthy or not. (Even assuming 1988 views are still relevant.) - jd603, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Just when you think Ron's crazy for being against something, someone posts Ron's response to it and blows your mind! haha , seriously , I wouldn't doubt if Ron's 1988 view of NASA is more correct than not.
Also, to the guy who's saying Ron is anti-gay etc. , do your homework, he is for individual rights, and that includes "gay" rights although he wouldn't call them that since he believes all people have the same rights and shouldn't be separated by groups. - Xevec, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1he(ron paul) is against government funding in general. The less government funding, the better. He would most likely allow private companies to do space exploration. He would most likely cut A LOT of funding from NASA though.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I found this:
- shauncorleone, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5"Anti-science, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-intellectual anti-truth"
Anti-truth? Who let toddlers out to play with the adults?
Did anybody even watch the Democratic debate and the half-cocked attempts by the big three to appeal to the faith-based and usually conservative demo?
Congress just denied an amendment to the Amnesty Bill that would require illegal immigrants who are felons or who have already been told to "vacate the premises" so to speak. Talk about wanting to give a free pass! I'd rather have candidates that are anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant than anti-national security.
As for Ron Paul, I'm still curious as to who gave him his Republican credentials. His debate was Monday. Those of you who strongly support him should be hoping that he'd jump parties or run Independent after his inevitable loss in the GOP Primaries.
In other news, the most anticipated (or alarming if you're on the ticket) and most viable conservative candidate wasn't even at Tuesday's debate. Instead, he was on Hannity and Colmes giving traditional conservatives a reason for hope.
As for a John Stewart interview actually being viable political news rather than pure entertainment, I'd be curious to see results of a Digg-wide poll as to who would push for the Stewart-Colbert ticket.- sunshinemonster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2As for immigration, we should force buisnesses to pay minimum wage to all employees. This would cause the balance to tip out of the immigrants hands and since illegal immigrants usually can't speak English very well, the Americans might even have an advantage.
For Ron Paul being a Republican, you do realize the Republican party used to stand for small governments and more free market (which is what Libertarians are now, which he said he is.) He's running Republican because last time he ran independent he couldn't get anyones attention because nowadays it's always about voting for one party or the other. - Mier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No it wouldn't cause then the local LULAC rep would show up and call you a racist for not hiring illegals. I'm getting to that point that the next time I try to buy something and I have to point to the menu for the item I bought, someone's going to pay.
- sunshinemonster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2As for immigration, we should force buisnesses to pay minimum wage to all employees. This would cause the balance to tip out of the immigrants hands and since illegal immigrants usually can't speak English very well, the Americans might even have an advantage.
- davebg8r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3And just who is Jon's choice? None of these democrats, with the possible exception of Gravel, are worth the paper my vote would be printed on, much less my vote.
- Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I do not want to know.
- TomT223, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
Remember those words when it comes time to vote.- skyteria, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1O..kay....isn't that why we're voting in the first place?
- LMControl, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Are there any Democrats at all that would make even a tolerable president? I don't see any here. Anti-ethics, anti-morals, anti-personal resposibility, anti-common sense, anti-reality, anti-God, anti-laws, anti-establishment, anti-personal savings, anti-ownership, anti-self defense, anti-rule of majority, anti-middle class......
You see, from my point of view I see it the same way.- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Of course, your point of view has no pertinant examples of any of your claims.
Typical uber-conservative trash. - Mier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yeah and you need to pull that crap out of your ears.
Go back and listen to little Hillary giving her speech about a "fair society" instead of an "ownership society" which means she wants to take from me and give to some slacker in the ghetto. Stop looking at this as a "rich vs. poor" argument, it's a "success vs. failure" argument. If you fail you don't stop and sulk like the majority of those on welfare, you get up and keep going. There's no rich boogeyman waiting to steal my wages from me so stop being scared of them.
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Of course, your point of view has no pertinant examples of any of your claims.
- pyrates, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The only thing I disagree on the democrats is illegal immigration. This new bill, I hope it hasn't passed yet, would make any illegal immigrations that came to the US before January 1/2007, all be legal. Any after that would have to pay something like $5000 US, but they are even arguing against that.
The US does have laws about illegal immigration, but they don't enforce them. If the US would enforce it's illegal immigration laws like fining businesses who hire illegal immigrations, they wouldn't come to the US. I see a problem with a whole bunch of people use to working for low wages, coming to the US undermining the current wages and taking away jobs from legal immigrants and US citizens and basically turning the US into a third would country.
I find it unfair giving amnesty, despite the $5000 fine, they will have so many years to pay it off then, to illegal immigrants compared to the years that some immigrants have to wait in order to get into the US legally. I don't want to award them for not doing it properly. And that is what the US is doing if they go with this bill.
And the democrats are doing this bill because they claim that the illegal immigrants just want to be citizens when in fact they say that they want to just come here to work. They don't want to learn english. So they don't want to be citizens in reality. And with this money they just send it back to their families in Mexico.
If you think that this bill is fair, go look up the immigration laws of Mexico and you wonder why the US is so lax with it's immigration laws.- eleventybillion, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0I can just imagine the new spike in real estate values once all the construction companies have to start paying a living wage to all employees because they are all legal citizens, and the illegal Mexican slaves they were profitting off of can no longer afford to live in the US.
The downside will be the huge spike in violent crimes as a result of widespread poverty in those uneducated ranks of society. But I suspect that will be limited mostly to the Proles, and the lower cusp of the Outer Party. - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"This new bill, I hope it hasn't passed yet, would make any illegal immigrations that came to the US before January 1/2007, all be legal. Any after that would have to pay something like $5000 US."
The Jan 2007 cutoff thing is a new one on me. Are you sure? - Mier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You don't understand. That 5k penalty is for those that WANT to be citizens. If you just wanna stay and work here you don't pay a dime. Amnesty for law breakers is all this was. Thankfully it got pulled off the table until next time they try to sneak it in. We must be vigilent to make sure they don't try again.
- Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I saw an idea a year or so ago (from a Republican I think, either Ohio or Iowa if I'm not mistaken) that proposed diallowing companies for writing the salaries of discovered illegals off there tax bills (I think there was even mention of possibly including penalties and interest as well), thus eliminating much of the financial incentive for companies to hire illegals. Of course that creates the problem of who or how you verify everyone's legality, but I think if you combine it with a program of straightening out the tax code so it's streamlined, balanced and doesn't take up 5,000 volumes (OK, so it's only what 35 volumes, 40 volumes, but still... I mean, c'mon) you could take all those IRS employees who now have nothing to do and put them to work verifying legal working status. Bang, instant supplement DNS task force.
- eleventybillion, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0I can just imagine the new spike in real estate values once all the construction companies have to start paying a living wage to all employees because they are all legal citizens, and the illegal Mexican slaves they were profitting off of can no longer afford to live in the US.
- Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The article the other day on concerning African leaders asking for the West to stop sending financial aid and free food was very poignant to the libertarian idea of restricting government action in "overhelping" the masses. Everyone needs help from time to time but creating a corrupt economy through handouts is not helpful to anyone. Setting up an efficient trade system with another people's economy can enhance their lives. It is good for nations to have their own revolutions....
HEY EVERYBODY, PARIS IS MAYBE GOING BACK TO JAIL!!!!!!
Typical American attention span - eleventybillion, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1My favorite part of the elections is that by the time we know the names of the candidates, there is far too little time to research them all to make an informed decision. So instead we are forced to accept them based upon biased media clips from all sides of the spectrum rather than facts about actions that we can then interpret for ourselves. The news media practically trips over itself to tell you what something means almost before they've even divulged the entire nature of the event itself.
Meanwhile Bush and The Ministry of Peace continue to align us against EurAsia or East Asia, or whomever we're at war with now, and The Ministry of Plenty keeps encouraging us to spend our money because we're at all-time high levels of prosperity. All the while The Thought Police are increasing their infiltration of private life, not yet with telescreens, but with acknowledged wiretapping, in cooperation with The Ministry of Love, who tortures identified thought criminals in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay (and probably countless other places where there is no darkness).
The saddest part is that The Ministry of Truth has only begun to alter history (by way of classified Pentagon documents), but we voluntarily ignore records that we have of these men (and woman) running for office.
Anything that's wrong with our current state of being cannot be the fault of The Party. Instead it must be the fault of Bill Clinton. Or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Kennedy, or Nixon, or whichever other figure was and always has been a traitor to The Party.
Just remember, Comrades: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.- skyteria, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1telescreen = Fox
- murphygr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3yeah, some of the republicans have terrible ideas. but i also know that Hillary Clinton said that we should get rid of hard copies of files and move every file to an electronic form... about a week after all those emails we're "accidentally" deleted by Karl Rove. but the only thing that the Daily Show does is make stupid 80's movie references to get a laugh, and pull out ridiculous punchlines. I enjoyed watching this clip. I laughed, but it isn't news. It isn't even an analysis of the news. John Stewart calls the Daily Show a "comedy show" and talked about how his show follows puppets. It's funny, but it isn't news. Find it somewhere else where everything isn't sarcastic.
Bury - Novion76, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Stewart / Colbert '08!
- dwiezel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3John Stewart totally failed as an actor and he will readily admit it but he found his niche as a the host of a fake news show. Good for him. But if he goes over the top with his parodies and insults people beyond an acceptable level, we will shut him off!
- eleventybillion, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0What makes him any less qualified to make political observations than any other talking head on television?
Are we supposed to let that horse's ass Matt Lauer do all the jibbing and jabbing?
- eleventybillion, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0What makes him any less qualified to make political observations than any other talking head on television?
- HCJfilms, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3J O N
- theghoul, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2that Stewart is one funny som-bitch
- Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Uploaded copy of the video in case it dies again:
http://sharebee.com/f86e10d7 -
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is