Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
alexleo975
2658 Followers
masterdigg
811 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
spatula7Jan 16, 2012
When a comedian is polling higher in S.C. than the only Republican candidate who isn't crazy, it says a lot about the Republican party.
salbatrossJan 16, 2012
I almost spat milk when I first read the poll numbers for Colbert and Huntsman. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd wager the entire GOP is just working for the Democrats.
andytronicJan 16, 2012
Dude, it's milk, or the internet. Never both at once.
timelessbwJan 16, 2012
I thought for a while it was just McCain/Palin, but now I would have to agree with you,it's all of them. Very strange.
timelessbwJan 16, 2012
It does.
agmlauncherJan 16, 2012
To be fair, the American understanding of democracy is that likability is more important than substance. That's not to say that Colbert might not be a better leader than the idiots we have in office now, but those poll numbers aren't a reflection of his leadership ability. They are a reflection of his likeability, which is derived from his humor and personality.
roguegeniusJan 16, 2012
So many stupid statements. If YOU understood democracy, they you would understand that the understanding of the electorate IS more important. That's why we have a democracy, not a agmlauncher lead dictatorship. It is not incumbent on the electorate to agree with you on anything -- and from what I've read of your stuff, it's frequently better that they don't.
agmlauncherJan 16, 2012
Wow, not a single word you typed has anything to do with what I wrote.
I simply stated that Stephen Colbert polling higher than other candidates has precisely f**k all to do with his qualifications, and has everything to do with the fact that people simple LIKE him, which is a fundamental flaw in our system of democracy (as proven by the sheer number of truly bad congressional and executive leaders we manage to elect).
But thank you for attempting to twist my argument into something it was not.
roguegeniusJan 17, 2012
No. I nailed you dead to rights. You are right, Colbert's numbers have nothing to do with his qualifications. Sadly, that has nothing to do with what you said.
Allow me to quote: "the American understanding of democracy is that likability is more important than substance."
You see why that is a self contradictory statement? The people (the rulers in a democracy) 'misunderstand' what a democracy is about. If the people say it -- the system must respond to it. The end.
agmlauncherJan 17, 2012
Ah ok so if the people say we should all commit mass suicide, then it's an inherently good thing because the people say it? Gotcha.
Fact: running a country requires a certain set of qualifications and levels of intelligence.
Fact: The purpose of democracy is to choose a government capable of governing. A government that does not govern is not a government, by definition.
Fact: electing people based on their likeability is not an efficient or effective way to go about choosing people who are qualified to run the country.
Fact: if a society's version of democracy is that they choose people based on how much they like them, rather than how qualified they are, that democracy is not an efficient way of selecting leaders qualified to run the country.
Fact: that version of democracy is counter-productive to the function and role of government. Thus, it is not a good version of democracy, regardless of whether the people "chose" it or not.
roguegeniusJan 17, 2012
"Ah ok so if the people say we should all commit mass suicide, then it's an inherently good thing because the people say it? Gotcha. "
Actually, we have the same opinion on this. It's a bad thing. However, I try to educate the stupid (a largely thankless task) and you try to derail democracy and change what it really is.
I'm of 'Ben Franklin' school of thought. A democracy must have an educated, non-propagandized, and democracy will be great. You are of the 're-define' and destroy it.
roguegeniusJan 17, 2012
I agree with all your facts too, but it's not the problem of the 'country' it's a problem of the parties. We are corrupting democracy, and it's being done deliberately.
The solution? Honesty. It's not 'the people' are wrong (well, they are lazy and stupid - especially the 'party line' believers) it's that we allow the elite to DELIBERATELY maintain UN-DEMOCRATIC measures. When you have idiots here on digg advocating citizens united, wall street lobbyists, etc. They are the problem. Not democracy.
You can't 'redefine' away the problem to take the blame off the people at fault.
Well, you can, but I won't allow you.
dragisatJan 21, 2012
You can't be serious. Right? This country was founded as republic. If you can't wrap your mind around that concept, here is a short video that should help: http://youtu.be/KFXuGIpsdE0
sapana543Jan 16, 2012
Yeah, with the quality of voters in S.C., Beyonce, Paris Hilton and Jamie Foxx would probably poll higher than any Republican or Obama.
miklkitJan 15, 2012
Oh no! Romney is a serial killer because he has killed many corporations!
And corporations are people.............
timelessbwJan 15, 2012
Do you think life in prison would be out of the question? I mean he is a serial killer of corporations/aka/people.
johnnysoftwareJan 15, 2012
Man, he killed a corporation.
Ten years of swanky food, then one last banquet.
Beats the old plan in Mexico.
One year of swanky food, then some drugs and an obsidian blade.
Basically, at the end he will be glad because he will never have to look at another Dixie cup or Brawny paper towel again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timelessbwJan 15, 2012
Didn't he kill more than one corporation? But you are right, that does seem a little too soft.
aadyssJan 16, 2012
Ah yes indeed. This is about the 12th time I've heard the 'murderer' attack. It seems the politicusUSA employees are not very original.
There is a new bulletin on the board about the lack of originality from the new bloggers working for politicusUSA. Please on your way to the restrooms read this memo. Failure to do so will result in loss of 10 entitlements and a disruption in your guaranteed easy life. Disillusionment will follow with disappointment as a hangover.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timelessbwJan 16, 2012
Well, are corporations people or not? If you kill a corporation are you killing a person or not? I would say not, but the Supreme Court seems to disagree with me and who am I to argue?
letsgetreal50Jan 16, 2012
Supreme Court is the final word on the subject. "Corporations are people." and "money = talk."
ultimisJan 17, 2012
Citizens United didn't determine that corporations are people. Unfortunately liberals on politicusUSA and yourself are still not aware of that.
Citizens United didn't even address person-hood, all it did was state that groups of people are still people, thus their first amendment rights cannot be barred in that medium. The ruling also extended the concept that money spent on speech related activities (paying for advertisements) is a form of freedom of speech and laws barring such use are unconstitutional.
The ruling nullified several laws that restricted both unions and corporations.
timelessbwJan 18, 2012
Shouldn't "people" be required to be American citizens to be able sponser our politicians? Are huge multinational corps/aka/people American citizens now?
ultimisJan 18, 2012
If it is a American company where the majority of the investors are American, than they have freedom of speech. As our constitution does not provided protections for non-citizens, laws that bar corporations where the majority are not American than that is perfectly reasonable.
roguegeniusJan 16, 2012
You know what the tee shirt says, ass-dy-ass.
"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas puts one to death."
countess666Jan 16, 2012
"Ah yes indeed. This is about the 12th time I've heard the 'murderer' attack. It seems the politicusUSA employees are not very original. "
that's because the right has no defence again it. so it works.
that's the whole point.
that in contrast to the rights own talking-points which have been disproved time and again, but continue to be repeated.
Ouzel7Jan 16, 2012
Defense? OK. These corporations had cancer. They suffered for a long time. Romney gave hospice care.
aadyssJan 16, 2012
countess and rogue believe in the 'nationalization' of corporations, guaranteed employment, guaranteed wages, guaranteed benefits and a guaranteed life path to fit the desire of the collective, USSR style. There will no longer be poor* or rich. profit motive will be eliminated and the corporate direct shall be full employment.
*If you are employed by the state (as all will be), you are not considered poor by the state regardless of income. State guaranteed employment within the states apparatus shall provide all needs as defined by the state.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 16, 2012
please point out 1 comment where i gave that impression.
what i actually want is a fair start for everyone. affordable education for all, and how much education you get depending on your smarts and work ethic, not on how much money your parents had.
here is your error: you are again, as all right wingers do, confusing communism with socialism. and the european mixed economic model with pure socialism.
so no wonder you are completley confused as to what i want or how Europe functions.
roguegeniusJan 16, 2012
ass, don't even dream that you have the sheer mental capability of understanding what I 'believe.'
aadyssJan 16, 2012
By the way rouge (uh rogue), in case you have not noticed there is a new memo on the bulletin board at politicusUSA. PoliticusUSA is now going gender neutral. What was the male restroom will be converted to office space and the ladies room will become the gender neutral restroom. (GNR)
The urinals in the aforementioned "mens room" will be converted to water fountains while the stalls will become cubicles for the more senior non-salaried employees. Chairs will be added by the sinks for the rookie component of PoliticusUSA.
There will a few rules implemented for the use of the GNR .(gender neutral restroom ) Commode lids will not be raised and urination will be accomplished while sitting.There will be no grunting, burping, scratching or any other obnoxious habits previously employed by the "former" male species while using this facility.
In addition, all subordinate personnel will address their superiors as sir. Miss, madam, MS, your hotness, slut or cutie will no longer be used.
Memo 1201L.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Jan 17, 2012
"here is your error: you are again, as all right wingers do, confusing communism with socialism."
It's because many of us are very educated on the subject of socialism/communism...
See...communists design their strategy to be incremental. Bit by bit by bit a nation accepts a little more taxation, cedes more power to government, agrees to more social programs.
Ultimately it collapses the system.
I see too many people like you saying, "Hey it's really not that bad!" or "We already have socialism!" or "You don't know what socialism is."
We do... and we don't want the slide down the slope.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work doneComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 17, 2012
I'm pretty sure this is how a 'right winger' characterizes those in disagreement. There's a tendency for great 'over attribution' when it comes to characterizations of the opposition.
Let me take a stab at what they are saying. Though, not being them, I can't say for sure. Rogue and Countess believe in Free Markets (not nationalization) with proper over site by Government organizations. They also believe in people being payed what they are worth with a 'safety net' that is limited in scope but available when 'life happens.
The real crux here appears to be one of trust and focus. I also favor a free market but don't want a society defined by its corporations. Money and the influence of a 'few' tilts the playing field unfairly. Better to have 'more power' in the hands of many than most power coalesced in the hands of a few. The Citizens United ruling only exacerbates this problem. Look for record levels of money spent on both sides mostly by a few 'special interest groups this election. Yea for Wall Street. Maybe next time Main Street.
aadyssJan 18, 2012
JustSayNoParty
It would be far better to offer ideas as to how you would accomplish your views. Anything else is merely preaching a sermon of platitudes.
roguegeniusJan 21, 2012
Ass, was that a joke? It's tough to tell, because I usually laugh when I hear one.
Try again. And this time put a little more effort forth.
Justsayno,
Don't bother. They either aren't smart enough to understand or don't want to understand. I just mock them mostly. More than they deserve. A houseplant has as much range of thought as ass and ouz.
aadyssJan 17, 2012
countess,
So everyone will attend Harvard. Good plan. Well, maybe not the "dumb" ones. They can be on welfare because it's not their fault they are dumb. After all, someone has to be the "lower class". Anyone with an I.Q. over 130 will go to Harvard although their facilities will have to be somewhat expanded. The "rich" can pay for that. Well, that would have kept out J.F.K., Teddy and LBJ.
Europe is functioning quite well. Spain, Italy, Greece (they think they are Europe), France and others are doing just great. The lands of Odin,Loki and Thor are "oil" rich. Imagine, getting rich from oil. Not a very liberal thing, is it?
Countess, one thing for sure...liberals are very thin-skinned.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotJan 16, 2012
Yea we must do away with these entitlements so kids can starve and grandparents can die. We must not be fooled into some idea that a healthier nation actually costs us less even if it is the proven truth. If we don't become like India or various African nations then we will lose our dignity as the largest super power who pays the most for healthcare that is only subpar. What we need is starving children because those children will then learn that any job in any factory paying $1 an hour is better than starving and therefore we can bring back Nike and other big companies to this grand old USA. We must stop treating the middle-class as something to be revered, they only keep our prices higher than other 3rd world countries. We should focus on dividing our nation into poor and rich because that works real well in these countries that pay $.70 an hour and isn't this the nation we truly want to be? Stop deluding yourself lefties. Our nation can only be great if we let the right completely ruin it.
aadyssJan 16, 2012
If you pay attention to the media, that is about to happen. California can no longer afford beloved liberal programs because of the massive public sector pension payouts. Rhode Island and Illinois...the same. If reform of public sector pensions does not occur, many programs will disappear. Liberals want the pensions and their programs and everything. The people simply do not have the money the states liberal politicians put them on the hook for. . Who can say, "we can have it all?" The left can.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/09/14/rhode-island-pension-tsunami-surges/
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142289416/rhode-island-struggles-with-pension-overhaul
http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2010/02/pension.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotJan 16, 2012
Yes, exactly liberals created pensions because no conservative would make a benefit they couldn't pay to avoid an increase in other areas like pay. Pensions are just another entitlement created by crazy liberals. It's good that at least aadyss is grounded in reality and not some crazy liberal. You should also note when a conservative like Aadyss says reform what he really wants is to do away with pensions because some bad mathematicians might get involved and muck it up.
countess666Jan 16, 2012
California could close its budget deficit and have a surplus if it could stop supporting those red-state leeches.
for every dollar California brings in as federal taxes, it gets less then 80 cents back. meanwhile some red states get back up to 2 dollars for every dollar in revenue.
California would be fine it didn't have to support those red states money pits.
aadyssJan 16, 2012
You support...NO REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME!! Way to go!!!
Those "red states" support a very large and very poor population of African Americans. No REDISTRIBUTION of income for "those" people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssJan 16, 2012
..and remember, California is a very wealthy state who must pay their 'fair share'. It is only fair, according to the left's platitudes, that they support the less advantaged amongst us.
But that shouldn't be a surprise, because it's a natural result of the taxation system: people with higher incomes pay more taxes than they get back in government services; people with lower incomes get more back than they pay in. Consequently, states with more high-income people look like "losers" compared to states with more lower income people. That's just the natural result of the tax system's redistributive effects, and the more progressive the tax structure, the more pronounced the redistributive effects. SURPRISE!! And those losers are very liberal states who should, once again according to the left's platitudes, have absolutely no problem with the redistribution of wealth.
It's strange you are complaining about the redistribution of wealth. W'sup?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 17, 2012
so... when will red states do what their parties says they must do and stop leeching off of others?
aadyssJan 17, 2012
That's funny 6. Without leaches and the redistribution of wealth, the Democrats would be powerless. Leaching and redistribution are the key components of the Democratic Party. Do you desire the destruction of your own party 6?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SPATIALGUYJan 16, 2012
Well said miklkit...LMAO that's funny!
miklkitJan 16, 2012
Thank Colbert for seeing that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
vitriolandangstJan 16, 2012
It always is strange to me that Republicans brag about Romney's business experience as if it would help our economy.
If his experience were any guide, in two years we'd be paying the rent on Fort Knox after it was shipped to Beijing.
BluntzworthJan 17, 2012
They also supported a "War President" who was awol from his champagne National Guard unit.
roguegeniusJan 16, 2012
Sad thing is, I'd vote for Colbert on the Republican ticket. Even IN CHARACTER, he is less of a clown that most of the others. I'm really not kidding - we have people up there who think the world is 6000 years old, don't 'believe' in climate change, think being gay is a 'choice,' are racist... The list goes on.
Be serious. Who do you take more seriously, them or him? At least he knows what he is saying is BS>
vitriolandangstJan 16, 2012
Even Colbert's pretend talking points make more actual sense than the repeated nonsense we get from people like Gingrich and Herman Cain.
It's kind of scary when you can't even Lampoon someone like Michelle Bauchmann.
langfordJan 16, 2012
Dang, he really knows how to stay in character when he wants to.
breadfredJan 16, 2012
If it was me I would have crack up after the first 2 minutes. The guy is a genius.
shivabeachJan 15, 2012
Will Mittens show up at the next debate with KOCH embossed in his hair? Will Santorum rip his sweater off and sport a Family Research tattoo? Will the Supreme Court quit in embarrassment?
Anything is possible
letsgetreal50Jan 16, 2012
Yep, anything is possible.
ObamaCare is the same as RomneyCare.
pier2Jan 16, 2012
It's like a real life game of PAC-man. The PAC's are eating up anonymous money dots, then going after Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde - or Mitt, Santorum, Newt, Perry.
Closed AccountJan 15, 2012
yeah!!!! i wish he would run for office...
laurahoustonJan 15, 2012
"This report will make us look like jackasses," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.),
johnnysoftwareJan 15, 2012
Oh! Found it....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0211/Coburn_report_will_make_us_look_like_jackasses_.html
Thanks.
So, fixing that happens to be Obama's latest piece of legislation. If they go into election season failing to pass it then Coburn can say "we still 'look like jackasses'".
miklkitJan 16, 2012
Hence the auto buries.......
letsgetreal50Jan 16, 2012
Tom Colburn has oil money coming out of every orifice. He's bought and paid for by big oil and Wall Street.
savetheseaJan 16, 2012
The swift boat PAC in 2000 changed the course of history with money and lies
aadyssJan 17, 2012
Kerry is obviously a hero. Did he really shoot a kid in the back? No, tell me it's not true! He threw away his medals? Not really. Ah yes, so many lies.
I did throw away my medals...for sure.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiJan 17, 2012
Lies and Dem.s a match made in heaven.
BluntzworthJan 17, 2012
Amazing, you don't even know that Savethesea is reffering to the "swiftboating" of McCain, Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain. The actual swiftboating of Kerry didn't happen until the 2004 campaign.
Doesn't anyone else remember the former service members coming out against McCain, in favor of Bush, who never saw a day of combat in his life?
JustSayNoPartyJan 17, 2012
The former 'service members' should probably stop 'swift boating' people. Especially when they turn on Veterans such as McCain. Perhaps this time around we'll actually focus on the candidate's policy positions and experience? Read more in to Kerry as well. The whole 'swift boating' is yet another stain on our electoral process.
BluntzworthJan 17, 2012
I completely agree. I think the whole tactic was horrible. They had vets turn on other vets for a man who was awol from his national guard unit that never saw combat. Completely unbelievable.
aadyssJan 18, 2012
What to do now? There are no candidates on either side who have seen combat and only 2 (Republicans only) who have served.
aadyssJan 18, 2012
If combat makes a President, I should have been President years go.
BluntzworthJan 19, 2012
None of the people running for President, Obama included, claim to be a "War President".
aadyssJan 18, 2012
Bluntzworth,
As a vet myself, I don't give a crap. What in the world do you think politics is - some altruist game being played? It is and has always been a blood sport. It just isn't as bloody (real blood) as it used to be.
fitzal77Jan 16, 2012
It's very odd to see Colbert without an audience laughing at everything he says. I'm surprised when anyone takes anything he says seriously. Don't they know who Stephen Colbert is?!
phillyoverclockJan 16, 2012
I like the guy, but sometimes Colbert can be kinda awkward.
swramanJan 16, 2012
its the fact that theres no audience and that the interviewer is just so damn serious
agmlauncherJan 16, 2012
"Im gonna try and get serious here for a minute"
"Good luck with that"
stevanoskiJan 17, 2012
You know it.
anglosaxongalJan 16, 2012
Corporations are possessed and ruled by wicked ETs. Deport them from this planet!
JasknuJan 16, 2012
I love your web show!
mercedrocksJan 16, 2012
Yawn.
timelessbwJan 16, 2012
And yet you bother to post. If you are so bored then why?
mercedrocksJan 17, 2012
If you saw the segment you'd know what Im talking about. It was a horrible joke.
roguegeniusJan 16, 2012
Not enough shiny objects for you? Here *takes out laser pointer and runs it along the floor* chase that for a while.
stevanoskiJan 17, 2012
ditto
skywiseJan 15, 2012
And yet, that's EXACTLY what Stephen Colbert has been doing... Using his own corporation status to make political speeches on air...
MusicManGPJan 15, 2012
Indeed, to point out the absurdity of it all. We get it.
tribbledotJan 16, 2012
No, he uses his voice (his real one) to talk about politics on an ironic comedy show. Anonymous corporate money being leaked into politics is considerably different. The ability of a SUPERpac, which can often be traced to a particular candidate, to slander an opponent while still being able to claim that he has no involvement in the statement is also different. Exactly means something different and because you don't understand I'd think it best that you stop using it but I can't force you because you have freedom of speech. Noone wants to stop candidates from talking. We don't even mind if their supporters talk. We want accountability back and we think people are people not corporations and money is money not speech. If the head of Corporation A wants to endorse a candidate though then let him do so publicly as well like normal people do.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
Boo f**king hoo. He is doing something completely legal and above board to point out the idiocy of the entire system. Good for him - it's an excellent plan.
If you don't like it, try to get your representatives to overturn the supreme court ruling by passing a law saying that this is illegal. Or adding a constitutional amendment or something.
particleman420Jan 16, 2012
yea, it sucks when your own (legal) tactics are used against you, doesnt it?
roguegeniusJan 16, 2012
... and you are whining about it like a nine year old girl. Goose, meet gander.
BluntzworthJan 17, 2012
I guess Colbert should end all of his speeches with /s.