What is Digg?91 Comments
- detcade, on 10/30/2009, -9/+39"I say, stick to your principles, Joe. And as soon as you can, let us know what those are." - Colbert
- JeniBurns, on 10/30/2009, -12/+41Have we forgotten that:
a) Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is an Independent.
b) He is an Independant because the DEMOCRATIC caucus dropped him as a presidential candidate in '04.
Why is anyone surprised that he's voting *independently*? - blackinthmiddle, on 10/29/2009, -17/+39I agree with you in one area. Our elected officials should vote based on an informed decision and shouldn't have a mob mentality.
Unfortunately, the problem with the GOP and anyone who aligns themselves with them right about now is that their decisions are devoid of any rational thought. The GOP think the public option stinks? That's just peachy. WHAT IS THE COUNTER-PROPOSAL???
Quite frankly, criticism is a good thing. One of the main tenants of our government is checks and balances. But let's keep the end goal in mind: Healthcare for all. The GOP don't like the public option? That's fine. How do *they* supposed all Americans get covered then? Oooh, scary thought. Actually put a friggin' idea out there!
See, it's not good enough to simply say, "Your plan sucks!!!" A five year old can do that! It's much more difficult to solve real world problems. You know, what these guys were elected to do in the first place? So far, I hear a lot of criticism of the Obama healthcare proposal from the GOP and *nothing* in the way of an intelligent counter-proposal. Their criticisms would hold more weight if they phrased them like, "Well we see you have ten main points. We agree with seven of them. One of them we're neutral on. Two need changing because we don't like (whatever). Here's how we would do things on those two points. And here is our research to back up what we're saying. Let's keep negotiating until we both can agree on these two points." Until I hear that, I see the GOP's resistance as nothing more than a power grab and they couldn't give a ***** about the 50 million uninsured and the many more under insured. - thePTS, on 10/31/2009, -4/+21I think it was made pretty clear in the clip that:
1) Joe Lieberman has been claiming to support a public health option for years.
2) Most of the people who voted for him, want a public option. - rwbrinso, on 10/30/2009, -3/+18A-effing-men. I'd vote for either one in a heartbeat.
- Mujokan, on 10/30/2009, -2/+17Thanks for the laugh.
- bjenidles, on 10/29/2009, -3/+17Canadian mirrors:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-repor ...
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-wi ... - brbeaird, on 10/29/2009, -30/+44<prepareforbury>
I'm sorry, but this outrage over him is just childish. I don't want my senators voting one way or another on something just because everyone else in their party is doing it. But hey, apparently it's ok if your team (er..party) is in control. By encouraging this kind of treatment, people are actually further entrenching the partisan, narrow-minded two-party system we have.
</prepareforbury> - Spindig, on 10/30/2009, -13/+26The republicans have presented 6 plans: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editori ...
HR 3400 is one of them http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3400/text
Another plan is the Patients' Choice Act. Here is an article about it: http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spot ...
Unfortunately they have not been allowed to present any proposals or ideas.
You say that you hear a lot of criticism from the GOP, but what you are actually hearing is that the left says that the GOP is doing all this obstructing. Republicans have no power. The left is fighting within themselves and they are using the GOP as a scapegoat.
Lastly, there are not 50 million citizens who want to be insured and cannot afford it that are uninsured. The number is closer to 12-20 million. Millions in that inflated number are not citizens, millions are eligible and could be covered under government programs, but haven't signed up and millions can afford it, but choose to spend the money on things that they deem as higher priorties. - casspa, on 10/30/2009, -5/+18They need to run for office already.
- Spindig, on 10/30/2009, -5/+18You need to look at Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and even John McCain often votes against conservatives. Arlen Specter was another one who finally switched parties to the dems where he fit in. I could go on. There are many republicans who do not vote with their party.
- thePTS, on 10/31/2009, -2/+11"It's like they're punching us in the face and saying.. I wish you didn't have such a punchable face."
I lol'd heartily. - Masquatto, on 10/31/2009, -2/+11"Go against the liberal collective" should be rephrased as "go against the people you represent and the ideas you've publicly supported."
- Masquatto, on 10/31/2009, -4/+12Colbert promotes causes for education and military families all the time on his show, he actively talks about his religious and South Carolinian roots, and he has never promoted himself as a progressive pundit. And none of that impacts how right his points or quotes are.
Maybe you just have a problem with him pretending to be a clueless jackass when you actually are one. - ProfessorRiffs, on 10/31/2009, -1/+8"Remember, it's Connecticut for Lieberman, not Lieberman for Connecticut"
That statement is so loaded with all kinds of truth, I don't even know where to start... - stackolee, on 10/31/2009, -2/+9Uhm... except all of the public-option plans with any traction involve getting more people to pay for health care. The government-run options will be more like "government administered", a self-sufficient entity similar to the Post Office. Bottom line, everyone pays their share for the insurance (private or public) that they want.
The house bill extends Medicaid, but as I'm sure you know, Medicaid has been an American institution since the sixties. - podalirius, on 10/31/2009, -3/+10Obviously he doesn't, or he would vote in accordance with the people he represents. Duh.
- rwbrinso, on 10/30/2009, -4/+10Nothing like a Super Majority negoitating against itself. Sigh.
- chockster, on 10/30/2009, -8/+14What about voting for something the majority of his constituents support? Who is he representing, again?
- chockster, on 10/31/2009, -2/+8So what you're saying is that voters can't be trusted to make their own choices?
- pintomp3, on 10/31/2009, -6/+11Lieberman doesn't want to waste money on giving people health care, only supports spending money on invading countries and killing brown people.
- chockster, on 10/31/2009, -1/+6"respondents in the NYT/CBS poll were overwhelmingly in favor of a Medicare-type public plan (65 percent in favor, 26 percent opposed and 9 percent offering no opinion"
http://www.greenwichtime.com/ci_13677390?source=mo ...
"This seems quite odd for the Senator from Connecticut, where 68% of probable voters support a public option."
http://www.examiner.com/x-24103-Top-News-Examiner~ ...
Your turn. - captspaulding, on 10/31/2009, -1/+6"if he wants to think independently he should join the Republicans."
Seriously? - richnojutsu, on 10/31/2009, -3/+8Uhm, no. He's an Independent because he didn't get the Democratic nod in '06... that went to Ned Lamont. Lieberman had to run as an independent and won under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party banner. Learn something.
- spamspam, on 10/31/2009, -1/+5It's called comical satire, mate. Don't throw a little bitch-fit.
And many would argue that Stewart and Colbert are progressive to society. They get young people interested and keep them fairly up to date with news. They both highlight the follies of what the media SHOULD be covering and doing research on to actually educate the public about what goes on in our government; a responsibility that all of them have which is why freedom of press is protected by the 1st amendment, and one that they abuse. Stewart and Colbert's satire at least shed's some light on what otherwise would go unnoticed. For example, I bet many viewers (especially the younger spectrum of the audience) in Connecticut will vote against Lieberman in the future because he isn't doing his job. I.E. representing the majority of voters on important issues.
PS, if you want credibility, don't mistake weak for week. It makes you look kind of bad. - Shwaavay, on 10/31/2009, -2/+6@bacon
"as for malpractice, that should be in there. but we can always do it separately later."
We should be doing it first! Do the ***** cost cutting measures that everybody agrees on now, and then revisit this idea in a couple of years when health care is cheaper and the country might be able to afford it. - jmorganthall, on 10/31/2009, -0/+4I Lol'd. Hard.
- kooredaan, on 10/31/2009, -8/+12Joe Lieberman represents the state of Connecticut... The majority of people of Connecticut support a public option.
He's not doing what the people he represents would like him to do....... - greevar, on 10/31/2009, -2/+5I dunno, but I hope they're on the ballot next election.
- yutt, on 10/31/2009, -0/+3"Redistribution of wealth"
Oh please. I'm so tired of this line. Every single government in the history of the human race "redistributes wealth". It is one of the primary functions of a government. Whether collecting taxes to form an army to maintain national defense, provide public education, protect public land, maintain local police forces, put out fires, recover from natural disasters, ensure the safety of foods and medicine, or ensure public health.
These are all methods of "wealth redistribution". If you don't like democracy go find an island for you and Glenn Beck to form a government. You can live in your fiscal libertarian tyranny, while we work for a healthy, educated, and safe populace. - inactive, on 10/31/2009, -4/+7@bacon_skoda
Neither do any of the Dem proposals. They don't cover 100%.
The Dem proposals also include mandates. Guess who'll get those customers?
The House bill specifically punishes states that have tort limits.
The Senate bill has a private insurance company administering the "public option".
There's 1990 reasons not to support the House bill. And there's 1500 reasons not to support the Senate bill. - Isenborg, on 10/31/2009, -2/+5Joe may be the last remaining Senator that votes according to his values and conscience. As a general Republican, even I realize that both parties are devoid of real principles and a real desire to help/protect the people of America. We have been sold out by both of our parties. If you can't see that, you haven't looked hard enough. I don't always agree with Joe Lieberman, but he may be the last senator with any sort of moral compass or spine. We need more people like him in both parties.
- yutt, on 10/31/2009, -0/+3"...should we advocate giving everyone free food and water?"
Should we make sure all citizens have access to food and water? Absolutely. Do you honestly believe otherwise?
I'm an atheist, but some of you new completely amoral non-religious people terrify me. I can't believe you can even ask a question like that. And if you aren't an atheist, I'm not familiar with the religion that advocates allowing poor people to starve to death. - jwquinlan, on 10/31/2009, -3/+6@blackinthemiddle
You're assuming that we want the government involved and that it's just a matter of choosing how.
I think many Americans want government even less involved in medical matters than it is now. You don't acknowledge that option.
People need help; the medical industry needs reforming. But let locals do it, let them tailor an answer to their needs and desires. - boogerthecat, on 10/31/2009, -2/+5Who elected Stewart and Colbert?
- stackolee, on 10/31/2009, -2/+4No buries from me... but when you elect an official from a certain party (or in this case when the official bends backwards to be considered in a certain party) you'd expect them to support certain core values.
Also, important point, Lieberman's not "voting" here, he's going along with a filibuster, which I generally find undemocratic since you shouldn't need a super majority for most pieces of legislation. - greevar, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Start where it feels right and go from there...
- artdecaderoo, on 10/31/2009, -2/+4Today at 11: comedians did comedy. Wait, that's not news.
- Crimeodial, on 10/31/2009, -4/+6Man, I can't wait to vote against Lieberman again.
- greevar, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Democracy? Ha! This is not a democracy; it's a representative republic. If we were a true democracy, the corporations couldn't buy votes so easily.
- Mujokan, on 10/30/2009, -17/+19If the Republicans got two wars, the least the Democrats should get is some kind of intervention in the insurance market to bring the US in line with every single other ***** developed country.
OK so we have to deal with the fact that the economy was totally and utterly ***** on the Republican watch. All right, we'll try and sort that ***** out. But the US health care system makes no sense.
So the corporations have bought and paid for a whole bunch of politicians. The politicians now have to say to them: sorry but that money was wasted. Go make some more money. It's not like it's that hard for you to do. All your bribes went down the toilet. Too ***** bad. We can't afford to keep paying you ***** off any longer. Go deal coke if you are that interested in making money. - Moralogic, on 10/31/2009, -1/+3I wouldn't feel so bad for Joe if:
1. He didn't say not that long ago how hardcore he was against filibustering. [The biggest one for me right now.]
2. He was actually part of the Dem party and now the GOP, aka he is following his party. (He supported not only republican candidates, but also has been voting strictly the same as the GOP almost every time lately. It has nothing to do with him expressing his opinion. He has just switched teams completely, and is doing what he can to get money from the GOP.)
3. He didn't have actually have a long history of making idiotic choices and not really following reality or society. Remember the Mortal Kombat days? When the game industry was actually already working on a rating system, but he had to jump in so he could act like he was part of the reason it happened. (Of course a NY politician tried to do pretty much the same thing last year.) - arpad, on 10/31/2009, -2/+4Olympia Snow? *****, look at Dubya.
Do da phrase "drug entitlement" ring a bell?
And then there's the assault weapon ban which he stated he'd sign if it reached his desk without all the extra stuff the Democrats tried to lard it up with.
Leave us not forget that paragon of party loyalty Jim Jeffords.
And last but not least there's the Republican House and Senate which took about three years to start to forget just who the hell elected them and why and get into full, pork-pumpin' mode. Pikers compared to Democrats as the last few months have shown but that's piss-poor compensation.
Republicans ALWAYS stick together? Republicans NEVER have anyone in their party go against the grain? Maybe you ought get your head out of your Daily Kos 'cause you're just missing all sorts of facts. - gink1, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2You can tell a true Politician by the number of "special interests" he serves, the amount of money he gets from each and just how far he goes in betraying the interests of US Citizens to serve these masters.
Joe Lieberman is a great case in point and as I understand it is actually married to a Health Insurance lobbyist.
You really can see where Joe stands. (Against the rest of us!) - TheInformer, on 10/31/2009, -1/+3As are the Democrats in Congress that will vote for a bill without reading it or listening to their constituents.
- Moralogic, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Either way he isn't an independent, he is following the GOP. He is as much as a republican as McCain is.
- ProfessorRiffs, on 10/31/2009, -0/+1You say that to all the boys...
- spamspam, on 10/31/2009, -1/+2Sigh, do your research on the constitution. The founding fathers gave freedom of the press so that they educate the public so they can vote and have a better system. It is THE reason why they have freedom of press. Every line in the constitution has a lot of reasoning behind it. Take a look at the notes taken when the constitution was written. It's fact. Should I remind you that the constitution is the law of the land? Not merely a suggestion? Take classes in laws/courts/politics, and see that each law is there for a reason. The freedom of press is no exception.
And freedom of speech is valid as long as it isn't to conspire a revolt against the government. And it might as well as be factual. The pundits on Fox make up their own opinions and sell them as facts. Limbaugh as well. The difference between those you speak of on the right and Steward/Colbert on the left is true. I will not argue that it's relative. But in case you haven't watched the show or even interviews of them, they even admit to being biased against the right of course. However, the FACT remains that they at least keep their opinions to themselves and back it up with logical and factual arguments. They don't just present any data as facts.
And ad hominems are used by both sides regrettably. But one is comedy, so opinions shouldn't really matter. The other side (the rightwing media as well as the left) is supposed to be bringing facts to the table. Ad hominems just should not be used in news to further your own personal beliefs if you are the media, regardless of your side. Presenting facts is their job, not opinions. Now they just cover many pointless and mundane stories which aren't really info you need to make an educated vote. Comedy, of course you present facts and opinions. Please note the difference between satire and what should be fact-based news. - DamnLogins, on 10/31/2009, -2/+3The video is blocked in the UK. This is a Bad Thing(TM).
Seriously Comedy Central, WTF do you think you're playing at? You might think you can squeeze a few more $$$ from More4 (the channel where it actually airs in the UK), but if you want to hit one of the big boys (BBC, ITV, Sky) you need people to know who the ***** you are. Just saying... - DamnLogins, on 10/31/2009, -1/+2Obviously I am!
Maybe I'm just a retard, but in my opinion (don't forget I'm a retard) it would be useful if more people got to see Jon Stewart and realised that there is "fair & balanced" reporting in the US, albeit in the guise of a comedy show.
Blocking the show from Canada, the UK and probably the rest of the world may be a wise corporate move, but "It's hurting America!" to steal phrase.
I realise that there are syndication deals to be struck, but blocking several-day-old clips from the show is, to coin a phrase, "retarded". Especially as a week or so back, the show was available in the UK on the internet.
Edit: I just viewed your profile and realised *you* are the idiot. It makes me one too for replying. Meh! -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is