Friday, March 7, 2014

Humor of the Week.., or Would That be the Weak..., Hell, Nevermind


\

h/t Progressive Eruptions

54 comments:

  1. "...or would that be humor of the weak?" Exactly what is there in this video that could be labeled "weak?" From what I saw, Stewart merely showed conservative pundits and pols mocking the President of the United States and admiring the ex-Soviet KGB head, Putin. Is that "weak" humor, or is it more a matter of "the truth hurts." Because lots of folks on the right denied anyone supported or praised Russia's dictator. Also, the video showed without mercy how confused and nuts the pundits and pols (and I included certain blogger on the right) are about Mr Obama.

    In a rational world, he cannot be a "weak dictator," as the TeaPublicans imagine him in their fevered rantings.

    The reason Stewart is funny is because there's always a huge cannonball of truth in his satire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It was a joke Shaw. Hence the Hell, Nevermind.

    Stewart's satirical humor was funny. As well as having quite a bit of truth attached.

    I'm sure there are those who find it "weak" humor. Geeeeez, I wonder what type of mind that might be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's hysterical, the way the cons just gush of Vladimir Putin. It really shows them for who they are. If they keep it up, I bet Les starts voting Dem on a regular basis. ;)

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. Naw, I don't vote party. Parties specialize in groupthink and finding New ways to screw people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YUP! Only one party just plunges in raw without so much as a "By your leave, Ma'am," and the other eases in ever-so-gently after slathering itself with gelatinous lubricant.

      I'll leave it up to you and others to decided which party is which, but you must remember there is a very large segment of the population who is positively ADDICTED to being screwed.

      Heck! If it feels good, "What difference does it make?"

      Delete
  5. Both parties "just plunge in" without really giving a s**t about the long term or who really gets the shaft. As long as they wield power.

    As for who gets and likes the screwing FreeThinke, well, there are different ways to get screwed by politicians and your government. So, I suppose it depends on your preference.

    What is comical is watching the sheeples following their shepards like good obedient little lambs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think people follow along as much as you do. I think they are just making realistic decisions. If you are a woman, for instance, half the population as a matter of fact, you are more likely to vote Democrat not because you are some dupe, but because conservatives are actively hostile to many women's - mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces - interests. That is a serious reality that many men do not understand - hence men will more likely vote GOP. Men like that sort of slobby shit. Just look at the Middle East. It's a Mandystopia.

    There are real differences in terms of real lives between the parties. One is solidly pro-police/military state, defines itself as functionally religious, and equates money with speech and corporations with human beings. While in pretty much every other sense the parties are roughly the same, different only be degrees, where they are different matters a lot.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jersey said: "One is solidly pro-police/military state"

    And, in contrast, the Democrats are solidly pro-military, police state. A huge difference, doncha know.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jersey said: "...equates money with speech..."

    And the Democrats who bring this up are often using cutting off of money as a means to censor views that they don't like. A strategy that is not only very much against the First Amendment, but can also easily go out of control (imagine censoring the New York Times not with a publication ban, but by preventing them from paying money to paper companies. It's money, not speech, right?... Jersey, you should really stop looking for back door excuses for the government to crush its critics).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, FreeThinke, "amen" to sociopathy. That's great.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Jersey: Try as you might, you won't find anything the least bit sociopathic in my comment that FT was addressin.

      Perhaps, though, you might find sociopathic tendencies among the immoral, sleazy censors I am condemning.

      Delete
    3. Your opinion of speech is sociopathic.

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. I strongly disagree. Censors...now those are the sociopaths. Not those who express their civil liberties and speak out.

      If you don't like what someone says, why not just ignore it? Or better yet, argue against it? The abuse of the jackboot of authority to silence the other side is not only sociopathic, but only proves that the censors' side of the argument is very weak and cannot thrive on its own merits.

      Delete
    5. Money changing hands is a transaction. Speech is speech.

      JMJ

      Delete
    6. Jersey said: "Money changing hands is a transaction. Speech is speech. "

      So you would be OK silencing a newspaper by preventing money changing hands between the publisher and paper suppliers? Right?

      Sorry, Jersey, cutting off a money exchange at a certain point for the express purpose of silencing views you disagree with is "sleazy", censorship, and is disgusting as anything. It's definitely a back-door way to destroy the First Amendment, which you clearly have major problems with:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      What part of that don't you understand. Most if it, from the evidence here.

      Again, Jersey, if you don't like it, ignore it. Don't get your panties in such a wad.

      ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

      -Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868 – 1956)

      Delete
    7. We are all aware of who pays the money to the newspaper. We see it is in the ads, we see it when we pay for it. We are NOT aware of who is pouring money into these crooked "social welfare" groups influencing our elections.

      As for ignoring things, I'll leave that to you. You're so good at it, after all.

      JMJ

      Delete
    8. "As for ignoring things, I'll leave that to you. You're so good at it, after all."

      There's no evidence of that, but feel free to make "sleazy" insults if it makes you feel good.

      Delete
    9. dmarks, what is "sleazy" is supporting morally, ethically, socially, politically, financially, psychologically deplorable behavior. Money is not speech, dmarks.

      JMJ

      Delete
  9. "That's what you call a toddler." Now THAT was a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well jmj, if being an individual who sees capitalism, free speech (not the bought and paid for type), rational self interest, accepting personal responsibility for ones choices in life, limited yet effective federal governance, a strong national defense based on the concept of defense rather than intervention and "nation building", desiring a balanced budget, paying down the national debt, etc. is sociopathy then I guess call me a sociopath.

    But hey, boxes are comfortable now aren't they jmj?

    ReplyDelete
  11. RN: How would you draw the line between approved/protected free speech, and the "bought and paid for" expression that could be (i assume) censored?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw: Whether or not I "approve" of what people like Koch's or Soros (who fit your description equally if either does at all), I strongly defend their Constitutionally protected rights to speak out. Your fear of dissent seems quite strong.

      Delete
    2. "I strongly defend their Constitutionally protected rights to speak out. Your fear of dissent seems quite strong."

      Do you think there's a difference between dissent and lying? Is dissent the same as deliberate lying and using one's wealth to promote a lie so that people will be misinformed and vote for your agenda? If you believe the two are equal, then there is no hope.

      Delete
    3. There are libel / slander laws to take care of that, and I strongly support that. Opposing opinions on self-appointed watchdog websites are a very far cry from these laws.

      And yes governments are always very quick to call any dissent of any kind "promoting a lie".

      We have far more to fear from those who would censor than we do from those who say something we disagree with.

      " If you believe the two are equal, then there is no hope."

      The difference between dissent and lying is pretty much whether the person hearing/reading it likes it or not.

      Delete
    4. "The difference between dissent and lying is pretty much whether the person hearing/reading it likes it or not." --dmarks

      Like I said, there's no hope. Anyone who can make that statement and believe it is a lost cause.

      Delete
    5. A "lost cause" to being converted to the idea that freedom of expression should be tightly controlled and regulated. Proudly lost to that cause, in fact.

      Sorry, Shaw, I think that lopping the head off the Bill of Rights like this is a very bad idea.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  12. Follow the for hire lobbyists and the money trail. I'll leave it at that.

    I'll give you a hint, money in politics used to influence lawmakers. Pull peddlers. Stick with it dmarks, you'll get there.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Leaving it at that is sufficient. I will even help sharpen the fangs of the Dobermans you set on this lobbying trail for you. Going after moviemakers? Now, that would be barking up the wrong tree.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ??? Did I mention movie makers?

    I don't think you missed my point dmarks, but your response is a bit odd. Certainly to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure my response made it RN. The movie maker part was mentioned as a contrast to what you were saying...not as an objection to what you said.

      Delete
  15. What about money in politics used to influence (fool) voters? Some seem to think it's the right of those with the most money to be allowed to lie to the people without restriction. There is nothing in the Constitution that says money is speech.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Money speaks.
    Money buys access to a larger audience.
    Money IS influence.
    Money is the grease that makes things happen.
    Money makes the world turn.

    Welcome to the modern world Mr. Sanders.

    Actually is, it always has been, and it likely always will be.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am aware of the way things are, RN. What I'm saying is that they don't have to be that way. But I wouldn't expect anyone who thinks money is life to understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said that money IS life. That is a lie. I was only trying to point out that, instead of complaining about one's circumstance and trying sponge off of others, a person would be much, MUCH, better served by trying to improve his or her own life via hard work, educational strategies, innovation, etc..

      Delete
    2. Will: Those who you argue against are those that think "money is life", and they tend to want greedy, fascistic overregulation, control, and theft of the people's money by the government. As opposed to a less money-obsessed set of policies which leave much more control of the people's money with the people themselves.

      Those who are " trying sponge off of others " tend to favor such destructive policies out of base emotions such as envy and greed: the government cuts down those who are good at what they do, forcibly appropriates their property, and hands it to the lazy whiners. Next thing you know, you have a Stalin in power, a leader who utters entirely untrue statements about rich and poor in order to increase the wealth and power of the most powerful.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. "In Framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison Federalist 51......."States are clumsy and inept in many ways. Thank God. But they are exceptionally good at wreaking death and destruction. Indeed, if they were not, they could not sustain themselves as states." Robert Higgs

      Delete
  18. Then you will likely die a bitter man Mr. Sanders.

    But keep dreaming you can change the world.

    Perhaps in the next millennium.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Money follows money, or money goes where money is.

    Money makes the world go round.

    It's a beautiful thing.

    If you have money.

    Opportunitirs abound.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So Jersey we could ban Kos or Townhall from spending money on web hosting, right? Or newspapers from spending money on ink and paper, right? Its money not speech after all...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big dollars in politics skews the playing field greatly. For example, simply to match the Koch
      brothers, 1,142,857 folks like me will donate $350 a year; just to be heard above the ridiculous din that is modern campaign advertising. If two individuals equals a little over a million individuals in that context, Orwell nailed it when he noted, "..but some animals are more equal than others".

      Delete
    2. BB: If you want to propose so that the Koch Brothers each can only contribute $350 a year to a campaign, I will entertain that idea.

      Delete
    3. dmarks, the sociopathic logic of yours is now on full display in our current election system, where now "social welfare" groups raise tax free anonymous money to say virtually anything they want to muddy our elections and trick people into voting against their best interests. It's disgusting - right down there with piddling around with children, as far as I'm concerned, so stark a moral failing even an atheist like me would call it a stark moral failing. I just don't know what you don't get about this.

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. A question, Jersey. If some really rich guy is passionate about political causes, and wants to fund a movie with the purpose of swaying people's views on political issues, or even causing them to vote differently ("muddy our elections").... is this considered by you to be immoral and should somehow be stopped?

      Delete
    5. No. We simply need to know who is doing it.

      JMJ

      Delete
    6. So Jersey... the Koch Brothers would be able to advocate and spend in any way they wanted, as long as the money trail is identified?

      Delete
  21. I just don't know what your don't get about this,Jersey. You are stretching in even more. To borrow a word you use a lot, it is sleazy to equate the right to speak out on issues of the day with pedophilia. Immoral, in fact.

    An open society does indeed have "muddy waters" of contention and different views, even if you think this expression should be strictly regulated, and are annoyed that people vote in their best interests which might no be what you want.

    If you don't like what they say, ignore it. Or say something else. Don't censor. That is definitely the most immoral thing being discussed here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In a perfectly rational and sane world information would be presented honestly and without spin.

    Information (data) would be analyzed, various opinions would formed by individuals from the same factual information as to proper action or no action, debate would take place, a consensus arrived at, a decision made, and so forth and so on.

    Millions after millions are being spent by uber wealthy individuals and corporations to influence the public, often on misleading or flat out false information, buy politicians/ officials of our government, so their special interests prevail.

    That's the point in my mind dmarks, and of course we know we do not live on a perfectly rational and honest society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, RN. I hope we can deal with this problem without the mindset of Shaw (going after just one wealthy, powerful side and protecting the other simply because you agree with their views) and also without censoring films.

      "Millions after millions are being spent by uber wealthy individuals and corporations to influence the public,"

      Don't forget the destructive (and often illegal) use of taxpayer dollars by the government to advertise/promote political causes (such as controversial ads on Obamacare). And the uber-rich individuals in the media (such as New York Times) who are fine with trying to influence elections unless someone else is doing it.

      "...often on misleading or flat out false information..."

      The people should determine this, not the government. False claims by self-appointed pressure groups such as "Politifact" (which still hasn't fixed its incorrect claim about Romney and the auto jobs shipped to China) should not have the rule of law. The government should not pick sides on such differences of opinion. Agree?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.



LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails