General

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

thelion — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:21:31 GMT

Arvin:

Gipper:

Stewart is an idiot.

I don't think so. I think he holds idiotic views. But he's certainly of above-average intelligence.

My physics professor has remarked about socialists (excuse me, 'social democrats'):-- "There are no miracles. A person who behaves like a fool is a fool."

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Arvin — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:03:20 GMT

Gipper:

Stewart is an idiot.

I don't think so. I think he holds idiotic views. But he's certainly of above-average intelligence.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Gipper — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:34:48 GMT

Stewart is an idiot.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Arvin — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:53:04 GMT

Googled "libertaryan" and it turns out that the statists have already started using it... Jon Stewart is a fairly good comedian, but most of his material is socialist nonsense. The last seconds were golden, where he says "I promised myself I would cry" and proceeds to bite his hand to achieve the desired outcome, but instead achieves an outcome counter to his goal (swearing).

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

William — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:27:35 GMT

John Ess:

Libertarian = Aryan

Aryan = Iranian

Iranians put a fatwa out on Salman Rushdie

Salman Rushdie is an anagram of Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh is fat

Fat people need health care coverage

Do you see where this is going, America? These people are taking over your country by the hour. Their Islamofascism and hatred for you is out of control. We've never been this divided, America.

*tear*

Does anyone here remember 9/11?

Awesome. Bonus points for knowing Aryan = Iranian, even bigger bonus points for enlightening me on the Salman Rushdie anagram

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Beefheart — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:05:18 GMT

Grayson Lilburne:

Jon Stewart was not promoting, or even slyly suggesting, that libertarianism can be associated with Aryanism. He wasn't even making fun of libertarianism at all. He was making the point that Beck using word free-association to link ALL social democrats with what are considered the most extreme left-wing ideologies is just as ridiculous as linking libertarianism with the what are considered the most extreme right-wing ideologies. If anything, in basing his joke on the ridiculousness of associating libertarianism with extreme ideologies, he's implicitly endorsing the reasonableness/moderateness of libertarianism.

I thought this was pretty obvious, really.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

DanielMuff — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:55:56 GMT

Libertarians are aryan? Someone better tell Walter Block.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:49:14 GMT

John Ess:

Libertarian = Aryan

Aryan = Iranian

Iranians put a fatwa out on Salman Rushdie

Salman Rushdie is an anagram of Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh is fat

Fat people need health care coverage

Do you see where this is going, America? These people are taking over your country by the hour. Their Islamofascism and hatred for you is out of control. We've never been this divided, America.

*tear*

Does anyone here remember 9/11?

Well done, sir.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

John Ess — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:45:55 GMT

Libertarian = Aryan

Aryan = Iranian

Iranians put a fatwa out on Salman Rushdie

Salman Rushdie is an anagram of Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh is fat

Fat people need health care coverage

Do you see where this is going, America? These people are taking over your country by the hour. Their Islamofascism and hatred for you is out of control. We've never been this divided, America.

*tear*

Does anyone here remember 9/11?

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

LibertarianfromGermany — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:44:43 GMT

thelion:

You are a libertarian. Stewart just called you an anti-semite. Is that funny?

I'm a libertarian (a liberal). I'm also a Jew. Stewart just called me an anti-semite. Is that funny? Or is that just insulting?

LRC people got it right this time, I think.

Oh come on. By equating libertarian and aryan, he obviously wanted to make the point that Beck's "methods" and illustrations are completely ridiculous and don't prove a damn thing. It's kind of what SouthPark did with the Kill Smurfs thingy.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Blueline976 — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:00:27 GMT

thelion:

You are a libertarian. Stewart just called you an anti-semite. Is that funny?

I'm a libertarian (a liberal). I'm also a Jew. Stewart just called me an anti-semite. Is that funny? Or is that just insulting?

LRC people got it right this time, I think.

Did he call me an anti-semite on a personal level or over his satirical television show? There's quite a difference.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:56:53 GMT

Jon Stewart was not promoting, or even slyly suggesting, that libertarianism can be associated with Aryanism. He wasn't even making fun of libertarianism at all. He was making the point that Beck using word free-association to link ALL social democrats with what are considered the most extreme left-wing ideologies is just as ridiculous as linking libertarianism with the what are considered the most extreme right-wing ideologies. If anything, in basing his joke on the ridiculousness of associating libertarianism with extreme ideologies, he's implicitly endorsing the reasonableness/moderateness of libertarianism.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

thelion — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:53:12 GMT

You are a libertarian. Stewart just called you an anti-semite. Is that funny?

I'm a libertarian (a liberal). I'm also a Jew. Stewart just called me an anti-semite. Is that funny? Or is that just insulting?

LRC people got it right this time, I think.

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Blueline976 — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:43:20 GMT

I think this thread has gotten out of hand.

Look, I'm not saying Stewart is some champion of late-night television or that he should be praised. I know he falsely plays both sides of the left-right spectrum. However, my original point was that despite Stewart's skit that trashed Glenn Beck being absolutely hilarious, the two LRC bloggers (and apparently some people on this very forum) completely missed the point of the skit and took it far too seriously.

Why does every bit of political satire have to be brought down to a level of "oh well that wasn't funny because, see, that guy is actually a shill for the establishment?"

Re: Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and LRC

Valject — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:27:30 GMT

Conza88:

Valject:
("Clearly we just shouldn't let people talk who disagree with us. That is the libertarian way.")

Clearly this is a strawman & non sequitur.

(I'm not the one throwing around terms like deserves. You would do better to simply trash-talk your enemies rather than talk about people deserving things. It's the same as saying "There ought to be a law...")

Valject:
(So the left should base whether or not they listen to him on his affiliations rather than what he says? Party politics at its finest, I daresay.)

You clearly haven't read the thread I linked below, nor understand the tactics used by the power elite, via the fourth estate & intellectual whores to bamboozle the public.

(You clearly can't see the point of a statement. What in blazes does a bamboozling intellectual whore have to do with my point? Let me spell it out for you. Yes, fine, we can give you that Jon Stewart is a bamboozling thought-whore, despite the fact that you ignore the possibility he might simply be saying exactly what he thinks, and the actual whores are letting him because it is doing them a service. Let's skip that, because I don't pretend to know the motivations of others. I certainly will not make a wild conjecture that you do not understand something, since I know nothing about you. So, given the whoriness of Jon Stewart, if someone agrees with something he says, should they still renounce him because he is bamboozling people? I mean, I've never been one to follow a lesser of two evils, but those who would subscribe to Stewart-ism do so because he is at the very least saying the things they believe in, whether or not he's holding a carrot on a stick. Do you suggest, perhaps, that the bamboozled left aren't helped by someone promoting their ideas, even if the promotion is not in good faith? Or is it simpler? Are you trying to convince people not to listen to him by pointing out where he stands? If that is the case, I have a suggestion. It might do you well to not just toss the term "false left" or "false right" around and expect people to understand what you mean. There is a good reason for that. Those people...the ones listening to you...they're only listening to the words coming out of your mouth/typing hands, and they cannot read your thoughts. I've seen a situation similar...it's like...it's like those people who listen to Jon Stewart and like his ideals, despite the fact that he might not believe in those ideals. Come to think of it, how do I know you really believe any of the stuff you type? Hmm...we should just not let people talk at all, to avoid that issue, right? I say law against communication, right now!)

Valject:
(Was it any more productive for that association to not exist? I mean, doesn't the very fact of this word game mean you have a good reason to try and get more people to listen to your own perspectives? Or...or...and here's an idea that never occurred to anyone, I'm sure...You could just pass a law saying no one can bad-mouth libertarians. Yes, that would be the way to handle this, clearly.)

You missed the point - and you need to work on your sarcasm. Or did I miss something?

(Really? What point did I miss? Seeing as my point has nothing to do with the context of what you were saying, and that I was only pointing out the problem with simply saying someone should be "trashed", do I really need your point? The point being made is quite sound. Jon Stewart is a hip and cool way to get people to believe in certain ideas. At what point did I argue against what was being said? I didn't. I'm merely pointing out that we shouldn't shoot Jon Stewart because he spouts ideas contrary to a cause we happen to believe in. Seeing as I did so in a definitively sarcastic way (there are dictionaries defining the word and everything!), I don't think my sarcasm needs any work. Read this paragraph a second time if you're still wondering what you missed. I'm not about to dumb down to talk to someone who already agrees with me. It's pointless. I'm already miffed that I have to explain that I agree with you.)

Valject:
(Perhaps you should do something to prevent that. I would recommend getting some sense into the minds of the masses and knock off all the pessimism. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get people talking about something?)

Perhaps I am. Do you?

(I do. I got you to talk about this, in particular, merely by being sarcastic.)

Valject:
(Perhaps. Good thing we never have middle-of-the-road candidates to vote for, I guess, since I'm sure both sides would just flock to that fella. I don't see how this description holds up when the party definitions are always changing...)

You don't see, because you didn't understand. The paradigm hasn't shifted at all. Both parties are fulfilling their goals. One (Democrats) explicitly represents the welfare state, the other (Republicans) the warfare state. In essence, the president and party always do both. Growth in the state, keeps on keeping on.

(I don't understand? What didn't I understand? And since when isn't the democratic party a party of a warfare state? Since when are the republicans not part of the welfare state? Since when are some not playing both sides just to keep a seat? You know, it's still a party attitude to say that every democrat = X and ever republican = Y. And I doubt I made any conjecture claiming that the state does not grow. I don't pretend to speak for everyone, but we've been talking about a national health care plan for a year now...So yeah, the state does keep on keeping on. The paradigm has to be taken to broad terms that don't really matter to make a statement like "the paradigm" hasn't shifted. It shifts by individual. But if you mean in the sense that it's about government power expanding and two parties vying for power...well, quite frankly it's difficult for that to shift at all. Remember, if you were a member of congress right now, and I was having this conversation with someone else, you would be part of the melting pot that you just lumped everyone into. I would make another, final suggestion. It might benefit you to not assume that just because I say "we shouldn't silence Jon Stewart", it doesn't mean that I disagree with you about what he is and what he does. It means that I think we shouldn't silence him. By saying that I "don't see", you assumed I disagreed with your analysis of Jon Stewart. I do see it, quite well. I see it everywhere, on every side. I see it from so-called libertarians. I see it in every member of the government that currently calls themselves "liberals", and clearly have not picked up a dictionary to that effect. But maybe I'm just saying that I see it. Maybe I'm just here to agree with you and act in accordance with your ideals, while I secretly wring my hands together and laugh maniacally. I hope no one ever finds out though...they might decide to "silence" me.)