Has anyone else seen this show?  I've seen one episode of this so far on Fox News, from the same guy who created 24, it's been described as "The conservative answer to The Daily Show," although it's more in the format of SNL Weekend Update.

It's...painfully unfunny.  It starts out with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter playing themselves as president and vice president respectfully (yikes!) and then you've got these two straight faced anchors who go through a lot of recycled jokes you might hear on Rush's show (for instance, Hillary Clinton filling her presidential cabinet with angry lesbians) and seem to call a bit too much, ah, humorous attention to Barack Obama's blackness and that his middle name is "Hussein" (the male anchor said all these were facts from "BO Magazine").

I don't foresee this comedy segment becoming popular anytime soon.

to be fair, i never thought al franken's show on air america was terribly funny either, although i haven't heard much of it.

maybe hateful partisanship is just unfunny. but yeah, what you describe sounds painful.

  Checked out some clips of the show.  Sounds like more canned laughs...

  I did laugh at that fake Fox News ad that went something like ,"the only cable news network that does not bring you left-wing bias.  Fair and balanced..."

  And what's up with the Ed Begley Jr. fascination..?

  eh, *shrugs*

 

I will take a pass, and watch The Daily Show instead.

Has anyone else seen this show?  I've seen one episode of this so far on Fox News, from the same guy who created 24, it's been described as "The conservative answer to The Daily Show," although it's more in the format of SNL Weekend Update.


I caught the first show, and it was interesting.  And you are right, it reminded me a lot of the old "Weekend Update" on SNL.

It had it's funny moments, I was laughing at the guy that was "selling" the T-shirts (No Fat Chicks).  But overall, it was just to long and drawn out.  As a 10-15 minute segment of another show it might be funny.  But to fill an entire half hour, it was just to much.


   And what's up with the Ed Begley Jr. fascination..?


Ed is very well known in California circles for his almost fanatical activism for "Alternative Power" and "Alternative Fuel" beliefs.  His house is solar powered, he either rides his bike or takes public transit.  On longer trips, he drives a Toyota Prius.  He also sells his own brand of "Environmentally Friendly Household Cleaner".

http://www.begleysbest.com/

Personally, I like Ed.  He is a common sight in many areas of LA, where you can see him riding his mountain bike.  He can frequently be found at the Starbucks in Studio City, on Ventura Blvd.  I have talked with him many times, and he is very approachable as a person (like most celebrities - if approached they like to be treated like people, not a "Famous Person").

And as much as he can be "out there" on the Environment, nobody can deny that he really tries to live by the standards he sets for others.  Having relied on LA public transit, that says a lot in and of itself.  And he often rides his bike from his house in the Beverly Hills - Wilshire area to the Studio City - San Fernando Valley area.  That is a 10-15 mile trip each way, through the mountain pass of Laural Canyon.  That is dedication that I can respect.

Mostly, I think they were making fun of some of his past ideas, that never worked.  Like financing a car that was supposed to run on methane (it was a flop), and his attempt to get most of LA to be solar powered (a nice idea - one I have endorsed myself, but to expensive and impracticle).

Or as Professor Olbermann calls FOX, "The 24-hour Comedy Hour."
:D

conservative humor = libertarians cracking AIDS jokes.
conservative humor = neo-nazis running down the homeless.


The Right gets humor the way a potted plant gets calculus!
::)

When I tuned in they were making fun of Dr. Perper's* cranial disfigurement.  "Like ewwww, why doesn't he get that thing operated on?"
*the M.E. in the Anna Nicole case.

That Gutfeld character is a dope.  They prepped him on the cable networks.  I was thinking, "Uh, is he supposed to funny or something?"

The only self-proclaimed conservative out there who actually has wit is Dennis Miller, and even he falls flat.

The elements of satire do not work when it's the king ridiculing the peasants.  Thus, when people who side with the rich and the powerful try to spoof social conventions or current events, it dies.

Of course, there are those who find the Weekly Standard funny.  These are generally the types who enjoyed setting cats on fire when they were ten.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/02/catsmiley.gif

i heard ann coulter at some conservative pep rally thing today on c-span. i'm not sure but i thought i heard her call john edwards a "f****t." it got a really good laugh out of that. then said something about how conservatives are "real men" and how conservative rallies are places to find "heterosexual men" -- but then doubles back and talks about how gays should flock to the republican party because they're tough on taxes and crime.

so funny! conservatives are really funny!

i heard ann coulter at some conservative pep rally thing today on c-span. i'm not sure but i thought i heard her call john edwards a "f****t." it got a really good laugh out of that. then said something about how conservatives are "real men" and how conservative rallies are places to find "heterosexual men" -- but then doubles back and talks about how gays should flock to the republican party because they're tough on taxes and crime.

so funny! conservatives are really funny!


Oh yeah, well then I'd like to see Ann Coulter try to give Matt Drudge a bj...no I wouldn't!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif

They're tough on taxes--sure, they doubled payroll taxes in 1981, and if you didn't like it, tough!  Crime?  Nobody does it better!

conservative humor = libertarians cracking AIDS jokes.
conservative humor = neo-nazis running down the homeless.


The Right gets humor the way a potted plant gets calculus!
::)


Ahahahaha... shhh.

i'm sure a right-winger can be funny. they just need to not try so hard. ann coulter actually has her moments, believe it or not, where i've had to begrudgingly admit she cracked a couple good jokes.

on the left, jon stewart and the onion are hysterical. al franken and michael moore -- not so much. (although michael moore also has his moments, a lot of his stuff in bowling for columbine and fahrenheit 911 was pretty brilliant, if he ruins it by being frequently misleading. but, again... not that funny.)

what about george carlin? what does he count as? he strikes me as largely apathetic, but possibly a hair right of center. dennis miller, now that he's sorta "outed" as a conservative, isn't that funny, but he was a gas on the old-time SNL news parodies.

i'm sure a right-winger can be funny. they just need to not try so hard. ann coulter actually has her moments, believe it or not, where i've had to begrudgingly admit she cracked a couple good jokes.

on the left, jon stewart and the onion are hysterical. al franken and michael moore -- not so much. (although michael moore also has his moments, a lot of his stuff in bowling for columbine and fahrenheit 911 was pretty brilliant, if he ruins it by being frequently misleading. but, again... not that funny.)

what about george carlin? what does he count as? he strikes me as largely apathetic, but possibly a hair right of center. dennis miller, now that he's sorta "outed" as a conservative, isn't that funny, but he was a gas on the old-time SNL news parodies.


Expecting anybody to be funny when they're politically motivated is just asking to be let down. A few people manage it, but by and large one must at least see other points than one's own to have a sense of humor.
There's no other term for me except 'Right Wing Fascist' but.. I love to make fun of large parts of the Republican party, simply because I can see that they're duuumb.
Michael Moore makes me laugh when he's not got an agenda. I thought Bowling for columbine was hilarious (well, not so much the subject matter) but his books aren't just dull.. they're full of lies. Al Franken is the opposite. I LOVE AL FRANKEN! I think he's a hilarious writer and unlike most progressive liberals he's actually in touch with common sense.. however.. put him on the radio and I'm bored in 5 minutes.
I think the one guy that's consistent is Bill O'Reilly. He's always funny, you either laugh at him or with him. The way he just rips in to people (Remember the NAMBLA guy he had on the show  ;D) is great.. and if he gets called out on something, he just goes nuts.

that's true, i'm maybe watching bill o'reilly wrong. i take him at face value and if i thought of him as having a routine that's trying to offer something for everybody, even people who disagree with him, i might clue into the humor. because it really IS just so over the top.

i used to listen to rush limbaugh day in and day out back when i was working the money order gig in college. (you know something? i've had lots and lots of weird-ass jobs in my life. ;D) i'd juist quiver wth rage the whole time but i loved it. loved hatin' rush. and i have to admit he's amusing, you don't get bored.

that's true, i'm maybe watching bill o'reilly wrong. i take him at face value and if i thought of him as having a routine that's trying to offer something for everybody, even people who disagree with him, i might clue into the humor. because it really IS just so over the top.

i used to listen to rush limbaugh day in and day out back when i was working the money order gig in college. (you know something? i've had lots and lots of weird-ass jobs in my life. ;D) i'd juist quiver wth rage the whole time but i loved it. loved hatin' rush. and i have to admit he's amusing, you don't get bored.


It's impossible to get bored with Rush. I either laugh or shout. No middle ground.

It's impossible to get bored with Rush. I either laugh or shout. No middle ground.


I got sick of Rush by the mid-'90s.  He's too predictable.  It was like rip 'n' read print-outs from the Gingrich press office.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/sleep.gif

For rightie radio, I like real wingnuts, the certifiable froot loops:
G. Gordon Liddy
Oliver North
Michael Savage

Espacially Savage because, you know, he wasn't always Savage.  He was a nice Jewish boy named Michael Weiner who had a stellar career writing diet books (PhD, nutritional ethnology), and he even went skinny-dipping with Allen Ginsberg.  It's true!  I wouldn't mention the last bit to him unless you've always wanted to pick up your teeth with broken fingers!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nut.gif

Zen and the Art of Reactionary Paranoia


i'm sure a right-winger can be funny. they just need to not try so hard. ann coulter actually has her moments, believe it or not, where i've had to begrudgingly admit she cracked a couple good jokes.

on the left, jon stewart and the onion are hysterical. al franken and michael moore -- not so much. (although michael moore also has his moments, a lot of his stuff in bowling for columbine and fahrenheit 911 was pretty brilliant, if he ruins it by being frequently misleading. but, again... not that funny.)

what about george carlin? what does he count as? he strikes me as largely apathetic, but possibly a hair right of center. dennis miller, now that he's sorta "outed" as a conservative, isn't that funny, but he was a gas on the old-time SNL news parodies.


Jon Stewart is brilliant.  It's fairly obvious he's a liberal, but he nails everybody...and he's so sly and disarming when he does it.  Steven Colbert is great, but he's got more of a schtick---the O'Reilly parody--whereas I could see Stewart hosting the Tonight Show someday.....he's certainly funnier than Jay Leno, come on! 

Keith Olbermann is one of my favorites.  Olbermann was a total surprise to me.  He just seemed like another big dumb sports guy from ESPN, the last guy I thought would be taunting Bill O'Reilly and delivering some of the most incisive commentary on televsion.  I'm not sure Olbermann would have gone so far if we didn't live in such twisted times!

Carlin is my favorite comedian of all time.  He rips on sanctimony, hypocrisy, and authority...not just some authority, all authority.  Carlin achieved what so many others try and fail to achieve.  He can be derisive, cynical, and angry, and simultaneously fun, warm, and personable.  If you've got a stick up your azz about God or "political correctness," if you're haughty and over-serious, you won't like George, otherwise...

Franken was fun at first when Air America was first on just because it was so cool to have a counter-Limbaugh.  Now he's redundant and annoying...

Carlin is my favorite comedian of all time.  He rips on sanctimony, hypocrisy, and authority...not just some authority, all authority.  Carlin achieved what so many others try and fail to achieve.  He can be derisive, cynical, and angry, and simultaneously fun, warm, and personable.  If you've got a stick up your azz about God or "political correctness," if you're haughty and over-serious, you won't like George, otherwise...


Amen to that! He was on FIRE with "Life Is Worth Losing".

George Carlin is the greatest stand-up comedian in history, IMO.  He makes me laugh so hard I get sick.

The only self-proclaimed conservative out there who actually has wit is Dennis Miller, and even he falls flat.


Actually, you might be surprised.  One of the things you occasionally hear about in Hollywood is the "Conservative Closet".

Similar to the "Communist Closet" of a generation ago, this tends to prevent Conservatives in show business from being to outspoken in their beliefs.  Because if they do, the ore "Rabid Liberals" can damage their careers (like refuseing to appear with thim).  And in an industry where the loss of a part or gig can ruin a career, a lot stay in the closet, only peeking their heads out from time to time.

But here are a few who have spoken of their Conservative values:

Drew Carey
Kelsey Grammer
Chuck Norris
Sylvester Stallone
Tom Selleck
Kurt Russell
Tony Danza
Robert Duvall
Dennis Hopper
Rip Torn
James Woods
Sarah Michelle Geller
Stephen Baldwin
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Vince McMahon
Freddie Prinze Jr.
Adam Sandler
Bob Barker
Dean Cain
Jim Belushi
James Caviezel
Morgan Freeman
Joan Rivers
Bruce Willis

I left off the obvious ones, like Arnold, Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston, and Fred Grandy.  But there are a lot more of them than you may think.  They simply do not go around and pontificate their beliefs to others.  Although there are often exceptions.  I remember several "Pro Afganistan" and "Pro Iraq" ralleys in LA in 2002-2003 in which many of these stars appeared and gave speeches.  But those ralleys got nowhere near the press coverage of those with people like Babs and the like.

Actually, you might be surprised.  One of the things you occasionally hear about in Hollywood is the "Conservative Closet".

Similar to the "Communist Closet" of a generation ago, this tends to prevent Conservatives in show business from being to outspoken in their beliefs.  Because if they do, the ore "Rabid Liberals" can damage their careers (like refuseing to appear with thim).  And in an industry where the loss of a part or gig can ruin a career, a lot stay in the closet, only peeking their heads out from time to time.

But here are a few who have spoken of their Conservative values:

Drew Carey
Kelsey Grammer
Chuck Norris
Sylvester Stallone
Tom Selleck
Kurt Russell
Tony Danza
Robert Duvall
Dennis Hopper
Rip Torn
James Woods
Sarah Michelle Geller
Stephen Baldwin
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Vince McMahon
Freddie Prinze Jr.
Adam Sandler
Bob Barker
Dean Cain
Jim Belushi
James Caviezel
Morgan Freeman
Joan Rivers
Bruce Willis

I left off the obvious ones, like Arnold, Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston, and Fred Grandy.  But there are a lot more of them than you may think.  They simply do not go around and pontificate their beliefs to others.  Although there are often exceptions.  I remember several "Pro Afganistan" and "Pro Iraq" ralleys in LA in 2002-2003 in which many of these stars appeared and gave speeches.  But those ralleys got nowhere near the press coverage of those with people like Babs and the like.


MmmHmm. THANK YOU!

Very true, it's just the Liberal controlled media fails to bring this to people's attention.

MmmHmm. THANK YOU!

Very true, it's just the Liberal controlled media fails to bring this to people's attention.

a.  The media is not controlled by liberals.  I don't care if David Geffen is gay.  Socially liberal doesn't count for much, IMO.
b.  It depends on what you mean by "conservative."  I can't make much sense of a list that puts Clint Eastwood and Robert Duvall on the same roster with Dennis Miller and Chuck Norris!
;D

I don't know any liberals or lefties who form their opinions based on proclamations from Tinseltown!
::)

"Conservatives" on the other hand, let one b-movie actor become the emblem of their ideology for a generation!
http://www.noblecortes.com/Kenny/ronald-reagan-2.jpg

a.  The media is not controlled by liberals.  I don't care if David Geffen is gay.  Socially liberal doesn't count for much, IMO.
b.  It depends on what you mean by "conservative."  I can't make much sense of a list that puts Clint Eastwood and Robert Duvall on the same roster with Dennis Miller and Chuck Norris!
;D

I don't know any liberals or lefties who form their opinions based on proclamations from Tinseltown!
::)

"Conservatives" on the other hand, let one b-movie actor become the emblem of their ideology for a generation!
http://www.noblecortes.com/Kenny/ronald-reagan-2.jpg


So.. based on what he did before he was a politician.. Reagan is just a dumb b-movie actor. Now.. I don't tend to throw around the BJ card very often, but useing your bizarro world logic, all Clinton ever was.. was a jumped up adulterer and drug addict.

Hmmmm.

So.. based on what he did before he was a politician.. Reagan is just a dumb b-movie actor. Now.. I don't tend to throw around the BJ card very often, but useing your bizarro world logic, all Clinton ever was.. was a jumped up adulterer and drug addict.

Hmmmm.


Silly conservative!  Why can't you just accept the fact that Reagan sucked?

:P

Silly conservative!  Why can't you just accept the fact that Reagan sucked?

:P


Sorry, that's right, I forgot, we all enjoyed being locked in a nuclear faceoff with the soviet union.  ::)

Sorry, that's right, I forgot, we all enjoyed being locked in a nuclear faceoff with the soviet union.  ::)


The funny thing is that my greatest fear was seeing how my neighborhood was becoming more and more damaged by Reagonomics.  ;)

reaganomics blows. it's all about deficit spending and big government.

and the soviet union collapsed under its own weight, reagan had nothing to do with it. reagan's become a cult figure among the right because that's the last character they were able to get in the white house who didn't COMPLETELY suck, like nixon and the bushes suck. ;D so whatever, they work with what they got.

whatever, some of my best friends are conservatives so i don't ride it too hard. but the whole reagan thing is SO over-the-top crazy.

reaganomics blows. it's all about deficit spending and big government.

and the soviet union collapsed under its own weight, reagan had nothing to do with it. reagan's become a cult figure among the right because that's the last character they were able to get in the white house who didn't COMPLETELY suck, like nixon and the bushes suck. ;D so whatever, they work with what they got.

whatever, some of my best friends are conservatives so i don't ride it too hard. but the whole reagan thing is SO over-the-top crazy.

I think Rice and Davey back my point.  Conservatives have an overwhelming need to see Reagan as a hero and give him credit for single-handedly destroying the Soviet bloc.  Reaganomics sucked in 1981 and it sucks even worse today because we have to pay the piper.  However, there are think tanks with the word "enterprise" in the their names that are committed to churning out scholarly works citing Reagan as the great white father.  You'll never get some folks off the Reagan bandwagon.  There are still some old-timers in Russia with Stalin portraits on their walls.  I hope in a generation we'll have outgrown this Reagan adolescence.

Reagan was a b-movie actor.  No, I don't think he was dumb, not at all.  I think Reagan was calculating and wiley.  Reagan was a voracious reader and loved ideas.  However, he was not a scholar, but a dreamer; a visionary.  He revered the elegant insights he got from brilliant minds such as RW Emerson and Tom Paine.  He knew how to build an ideology and how to communicate it in a way both the man on the street and the leaders of nations could appreciate.  These are not the qualities of a dim-witted person.  I think Reagan was good at synthesis, but poor at analysis.  He put big ideas together like building blocks, but he could not dissect these ideas and study their inner workings.

Reagan also suffered from Alzheimer's disease, which was inchoate in his first term and dangerously compromised him in his second.  Reagan was off the wall sometimes, and he was not fit to hold office by the time of the Iran-Contra hearings.  However, Reagan's goofiness was because he was sick, not because he was dumb like Dan Quayle or, alas, GW Bush.

Dubya would like to be Ronald Reagan, but Dubya has not the skills.  Reagan liked to sit down and talk with our adversaries.  Bush fears and shuns communication because he's no good at it. 

Yes, the Soviet Union was collapsing under its own dysfunctions.  It was a slow decline ever since the death of Lenin.  Reagan deserves credit for forming a friendship with Gorbachev.  However, Gorby was reachable.  I shudder to think what would have been if Reagan had said, "Mr. Andropov, tear down this wall!"
:o

props for deploying the word "inchoate" in casual conversation.

and... yeah. pretty much.

MMmmm, Reaganomics really isn't the factor in question here. Through heavy spending Reagan forced the Soviet Union to play catch up and reduced it to the mess it is today. Don't mess with the US!

The sooner the left realises what Ronald Reagan did for this country the better. Can you imagine Jimmy Carter in a second term? Stagflation, abysmal foreign policy and millions jobless.
Reagan was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen, it's quite clearly jealousy that stops the left wing nutjobs from seeing this.

MMmmm, Reaganomics really isn't the factor in question here. Through heavy spending Reagan forced the Soviet Union to play catch up and reduced it to the mess it is today. Don't mess with the US!

The sooner the left realises what Ronald Reagan did for this country the better. Can you imagine Jimmy Carter in a second term? Stagflation, abysmal foreign policy and millions jobless.
Reagan was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen, it's quite clearly jealousy that stops the left wing nutjobs from seeing this.
yeah, we had more money to waste on completely useless ICBMs. lucky us.

there's a great saying, "in the 80s, capitalism defeated communism. in the 90s, it defeated democracy."

yeah, we had more money to waste on completely useless ICBMs. lucky us.

there's a great saying, "in the 80s, capitalism defeated communism. in the 90s, it defeated democracy."


Democracy sucks.

Let's be fair. Most of the population is stupid. I don't want the poor and needy electing my leader.

yeah, we had more money to waste on completely useless ICBMs. lucky us.

there's a great saying, "in the 80s, capitalism defeated communism. in the 90s, it defeated democracy."

If we'd followed Carter's ideas, we would no longer be depenent on foreign oil.  We would be well on our way to powering society without fossil fuels.  Reagan did not repair the damage from late '70s stagflation and the early '80s recession via that free market voodoo.  He put our future on the auction block via the Fed and foreign creditors and then he raised taxes on working families via doubling the payroll taxes. 

Carter and Mondale seemed less manly than Ronzo because they were trying to deal with reality, the nuts and bolts of how we're going to run the country.  Ronnie rode his horse, flexed his muscles, and said, "Well, I can't help it, there you go again!"  So it was like a sit-come, "Everybody Loves Reagan," running on the same principle of why the football quarterback gets laid and the math club president doesn't.  Back in 1992, the late Paul Tsongas declared, "I'm not going to be Santa Claus!," and he was resoundingly wholloped.  What Reagan had--glitz, glamour, macho, and Reader's Digest cornball--sells.  Telling the people what they need to know but do not want to hear does not!

What would the right-wing press say if a liberal Democratic president turned us from the biggest lender nation to the biggest debtor nation in just four years?  They wouldn't be pushing to engrave his image on the dime, that's for sh*t sure!
::)

The Reagan era was basically continued by Clinton.  For 26 years we've believed in the free lunch.  In 2007 it's painfully obvious there was no such thing as a free lunch.  You think Reagan's your hero?  He sold you out, oh working class men and women of America! You got hustled, hoodwinked, bamboozled, hornswoggled, suckered---and you're just too proud to 'fess up!

Democracy sucks.
It does.  It just sucks less than tyranny.

Let's be fair. Most of the population is stupid. I don't want the poor and needy electing my leader.


I agree, Mr. Most.  I don't want the poor and needy electing my leader either.  That's because I don't think anybody needs to be poor and needy in America.  "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...."

It does.  It just sucks less than tyranny.

who was it who said, it's the worst form of government except for all the others?

who was it who said, it's the worst form of government except for all the others?

Winston Churchill.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

This means he heard it from somebody else, but since he uses the passive voice, we don't know whom.

It does.  It just sucks less than tyranny.

I agree, Mr. Most.  I don't want the poor and needy electing my leader either.  That's because I don't think anybody needs to be poor and needy in America.  "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...."


Who's gonna take out your garbage? Who's gonna flip your burgers?

Mr. Smart... although the utopia you suggest would indeed by idylic. It's impossible.

Who's gonna take out your garbage? Who's gonna flip your burgers?

Mr. Smart... although the utopia you suggest would indeed by idylic. It's impossible.

This was also the implicit goal of Reaganomics.  Free up the magic of the market place, get governmetn out of the way, and we'll all become the millionaire next store...unless you're a lazy liberal!  Come on.  We all knew it was nonsense.  They were just in it to make the rich richer on the backs of everybody else.

Impossible you say?  I would have to agree in the literal sense.  However, if we don't keep striving for this "utopia," we end up where we are now...inthe crapper with GW Bush!

I'm not saying everybody can or should become affluent.  I'm talking about economic security.  Sanitation and fast-food workers have a right to healthcare and and a wage they can live on.  They will never get it unless they call it a right and demand it.  Rights are not given, rights are taken.  The Civil Rights struggle taught us that.

Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you when you're just going to give me another puerile and flippant comeback!
::)

I looked up some of this TV show's clips on youtube today.

I didn't laugh. Frankly, I was SCARED TO DEATH. If anyone seriously likes Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter *shivers*, I think there is something seriously wrong with you.

My new phobia: Conservatives.

I looked up some of this TV show's clips on youtube today.

I didn't laugh. Frankly, I was SCARED TO DEATH. If anyone seriously likes Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter *shivers*, I think there is something seriously wrong with you.

My new phobia: Conservatives.


Not merely liked...but endorsed as president and vice president respectively.  On the other hand, it would effectively reduce, possibly even reverse our illegal immigration problems.  I'd probably be moving to Scandinavia myself.

This was also the implicit goal of Reaganomics.  Free up the magic of the market place, get governmetn out of the way, and we'll all become the millionaire next store...unless you're a lazy liberal!  Come on.  We all knew it was nonsense.  They were just in it to make the rich richer on the backs of everybody else.

Impossible you say?  I would have to agree in the literal sense.  However, if we don't keep striving for this "utopia," we end up where we are now...inthe crapper with GW Bush!

I'm not saying everybody can or should become affluent.  I'm talking about economic security.  Sanitation and fast-food workers have a right to healthcare and and a wage they can live on.  They will never get it unless they call it a right and demand it.  Rights are not given, rights are taken.  The Civil Rights struggle taught us that.

Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you when you're just going to give me another puerile and flippant comeback!
::)


So, you don't want government out of the way, but you still think rights must be taken?
I thought the idea of big government was to help the working man? Well, in the FDR mould anyway.
The fact of the matter is that what you propose is essentially the basis of a socialist state.
Maybe my views are tainted from having lived in.. socialist states.. but they don't work. You spend months waiting for the most basic of things. Things that you can aquire.. instantly in the United States, take months to get.. and of course, you're encouraged to do things out of your own pocket if you actually make any money at all. The percentage of people that don't work.. or work minimum hours to just exist and then suck money out of the government is so much higher in a socialist system.
There are around 3 million families on welfare in the United States, in the UK for instance there are just under 2 million families on welfare. Taking in to account the fact the US has a population roughly 5 times larger than the UK, that paints a picture.
When everything is provided on a plate for minimum or no effort, there will always be a percentage who will be happy to exist.
Now, the one thing that we have in common is health care. The level of public healthcare in the US is poor.. but as we speak, individual states are initiating programs. A member here has been part of the movement in Pennsylvania to bring about public healthcare. The same thing exists in California, New York and many other states.

The utopia you talk about can't exist in any society because of the most basic aspects of human nature. Some of us will just cruise and some will bust our asses. It is.. for lack of a better term.. social darwinism. Those who are willing to sacrafice will more often than not get ahead.

Rights must be negotiated for. Not taken.
Look at France right now. Riots and civil unrest have led to wide spread distrust of immigrants. Maybe the new job laws will come in to effect, but at what cost?

You bring up the civil rights struggle. You're right, that had to be fought for because the people who needed those rights were denied them at every level. Public, Local, Governmental and Internationaly.
That's not quite the same though is it.

If you free up the market there will be more growth. That's a simple and proven fact. Will everybody be a millionaire. No. Because society is a totem pole. Sorry, but.. it's true. A bunch of folks in Russia wanted everybody to be equal.. but as we saw, somebody is always first amongst equals.

a.  The media is not controlled by liberals.  I don't care if David Geffen is gay.  Socially liberal doesn't count for much, IMO.
b.  It depends on what you mean by "conservative."  I can't make much sense of a list that puts Clint Eastwood and Robert Duvall on the same roster with Dennis Miller and Chuck Norris!


And I am not trying to claim that they do.

But the result is the same:  People that stand up and shout "I am a Conservative" tend to be looked-over the next time a part is being cast.  Look at that list, and you will notice that those that are the most vocal also tend to be cast the least.

Remember, casting in Hollywood is a very funny business.  I worked in it for several years, and I still don't fully understand it.  Quite often, actors are picked by chemistry.  And could you imagine how bad an idea it would be to cast Rosie O'Donnel and Kelsey Grammer together on a project?

And BTW, Clint Eastwood is actually one of the most Conservative actors in Hollywood.  He just chooses to keep politics out of his acting.  Robert Duvall also is very conservative, he just does not talk about it much.

In today's "Political Climate", being an "Outspoken Conservative" would be like being an "Outspoken Communist" in the 1950's.  Because the Geffens and the like would not consider you for parts in upcomming projects.  It is not as much that "they controll it", as much as "they run and own the studios".

Mr. Smart... although the utopia you suggest would indeed by idylic. It's impossible.


That is the biggest reason I tend to distrust "Liberals"...  they all have some kind of "Utopian Fantasy" they want to sell us.  It is like if we do everything they want, the entire world will live in harmony, and we will live blissfully in a 1,000 year fantasy, with nothing bad ever happening.

In my experience and belief, one man's "Utopia" is another man's "Dystopia".  And my first thought when somebody spouts some kind of "Utopian Idea" (free health care, universal employment, international disarmament, free college, universal "living wage"), is "Where is this going to bite me in the butt".

And I never have to look far to find where the butt-biting is going to happen.  But they are so blinded with the concept of "Utopia", they are willing to do anything to drag all of us there, wether we ant to go there or not.

That is the biggest reason I tend to distrust "Liberals"...  they all have some kind of "Utopian Fantasy" they want to sell us.  It is like if we do everything they want, the entire world will live in harmony, and we will live blissfully in a 1,000 year fantasy, with nothing bad ever happening.


Hold your horses a minute...we can argue the positives and negatives of capitalism and socialism all night, the most common political debate of the last half century, but when you talk about utopia, I say it's been conservatives who have been the more utopian-minded people.  Reagan was a frickin' misty-eyed dreamer if'n I ever saw one.  He could wrap himself in Adam Smith and Ralph Waldo Emerson at the same time as he cut the school lunch programs, all the while convinced "the magic of the marketplace" would win-out.*

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.  They told us in 1981 that an unregulated free market economy would bring maximal prosperity to all willing to work hard when said unregulated free market economy had already been proven a misery-making failure several times over--from Victorian London, to the Gilded Age, to the Roaring '20s. 
The rich get richer and the poor get children, but in the meantime, in between time, ain't we got fun!

*John Stossel still talks like this and I wish somebody would do humanity a favor and put arsenic in his caviar!
:D

Who's gonna take out your garbage? Who's gonna flip your burgers?

Mr. Smart... although the utopia you suggest would indeed by idylic. It's impossible.


  Argh..!  That buzzword, again...

  The only reason any Utopia is impossible is because people choose that it should be.  We're the human species: we can get to the moon, broadcast a half-watt back through the solar system, replace your heart with a machine, get erections from pills, reshape the landscape, extinct species and, if we choose, destroy ourselves.  Who here is going to tell me that the one thing the human species can't do is operate according to the integrity of its better conscience?  Neither economic prosperity nor religious blackmail nor simple appeals to what is obvious and demonstrable seem to work.  It is simple greed for excess that prevents any Utopia under any label...

  Would somebody tell me why murder is illegal?  If it's for the cholera threat, we need to revoke the prohibition...

  Ah, it's better for society?  Well now, it looks like we're not exactly Capitalists if we won't personally kill for profit, eh?  That thing about respecting life is a little to pinko, y'know..?

  There are better things to aspire to; I always wonder why we don't groove ;) on...

So, you don't want government out of the way, but you still think rights must be taken?
I thought the idea of big government was to help the working man? Well, in the FDR mould anyway.
The fact of the matter is that what you propose is essentially the basis of a socialist state.
Maybe my views are tainted from having lived in.. socialist states.. but they don't work. You spend months waiting for the most basic of things. Things that you can aquire.. instantly in the United States, take months to get.. and of course, you're encouraged to do things out of your own pocket if you actually make any money at all. The percentage of people that don't work.. or work minimum hours to just exist and then suck money out of the government is so much higher in a socialist system.
There are around 3 million families on welfare in the United States, in the UK for instance there are just under 2 million families on welfare. Taking in to account the fact the US has a population roughly 5 times larger than the UK, that paints a picture.
When everything is provided on a plate for minimum or no effort, there will always be a percentage who will be happy to exist.
Now, the one thing that we have in common is health care. The level of public healthcare in the US is poor.. but as we speak, individual states are initiating programs. A member here has been part of the movement in Pennsylvania to bring about public healthcare. The same thing exists in California, New York and many other states.

The utopia you talk about can't exist in any society because of the most basic aspects of human nature. Some of us will just cruise and some will bust our asses. It is.. for lack of a better term.. social darwinism. Those who are willing to sacrafice will more often than not get ahead.

Rights must be negotiated for. Not taken.
Look at France right now. Riots and civil unrest have led to wide spread distrust of immigrants. Maybe the new job laws will come in to effect, but at what cost?

You bring up the civil rights struggle. You're right, that had to be fought for because the people who needed those rights were denied them at every level. Public, Local, Governmental and Internationaly.
That's not quite the same though is it.

If you free up the market there will be more growth. That's a simple and proven fact. Will everybody be a millionaire. No. Because society is a totem pole. Sorry, but.. it's true. A bunch of folks in Russia wanted everybody to be equal.. but as we saw, somebody is always first amongst equals.


  One of my favorite points about the unacceptabillity of Socialism is that we in the US will accept it under a different label.  What is objectionable about the state handling your medical expenses?  Yet you'll entrust your employer to do so while counting their own pennies to make sure they won't spend too much.  Your education?  What of corporations who offer college assistance within a specific range of majors?  Your education no longer becomes a benefit but a commodity traded.  Retirement?  Again, we'll entrust our employers who ought to have concern only for the shareholders and the bottom-line, and not toward the posterity of their employees.  We live according to some Socialistic principles, we just disguise them as Capitalistic.  Public education?  Social Security? (Work with it, I know SS is a bloody mess, but it's the principle we're after here....)

  No American wants to trade the Bill of Rights for the Hammer and Sickle, but we've recognized the benefit of seeing things in terms larger than ourselves.  Even if our communitarian ideas are motivated by greed, we are at least putting that greed to work for the benefit of the human endeavor.  The way I see it, we're all in this together, and there's no reason to go throwing everyone else overboard just to get a suntan...

 

  One of my favorite points about the unacceptabillity of Socialism is that we in the US will accept it under a different label.  What is objectionable about the state handling your medical expenses?  Yet you'll entrust your employer to do so while counting their own pennies to make sure they won't spend too much.  Your education?  What of corporations who offer college assistance within a specific range of majors?  Your education no longer becomes a benefit but a commodity traded.  Retirement?  Again, we'll entrust our employers who ought to have concern only for the shareholders and the bottom-line, and not toward the posterity of their employees.  We live according to some Socialistic principles, we just disguise them as Capitalistic.  Public education?  Social Security? (Work with it, I know SS is a bloody mess, but it's the principle we're after here....)

  No American wants to trade the Bill of Rights for the Hammer and Sickle, but we've recognized the benefit of seeing things in terms larger than ourselves.  Even if our communitarian ideas are motivated by greed, we are at least putting that greed to work for the benefit of the human endeavor.  The way I see it, we're all in this together, and there's no reason to go throwing everyone else overboard just to get a suntan...


We pay for these things. They're not in a soacialist manner. With health insurnace, a percentage of my income goes to ensuring I have adequate healthcare.
With social security, part of my income goes on that.
Education. Again, at cost. My company say's "Ok Davey, you gotta get a degree to get a promotion." I say 'Alright'. Granted, if they pay, it's not a monetary expense, it's time. All these things are sacrafices.
We work for them and then have to give a little bit to get a little bit.

People will never work together. Period.

You'll say it's because of people like me. CORRECT!! .. and there are billions of us.

People will never work together. Period.

You'll say it's because of people like me. CORRECT!! .. and there are billions of us.
...all working together to make sure no one can ever work together. isn't it ironic?

...all working together to make sure no one can ever work together. isn't it ironic?


It's beautiful.

But seriously.

Even those of us that aren't working towards a common utopian goal can't agree. It's just life.. it's just.. evolution.

We pay for these things. They're not in a soacialist manner. With health insurnace, a percentage of my income goes to ensuring I have adequate healthcare.
With social security, part of my income goes on that.
Education. Again, at cost. My company say's "Ok Davey, you gotta get a degree to get a promotion." I say 'Alright'. Granted, if they pay, it's not a monetary expense, it's time. All these things are sacrafices.
We work for them and then have to give a little bit to get a little bit.


  Dependency upon the state or an employer to provide these things is socialism in concept.  Paved roads could be, too, as well as the houses we live in (I know I didn't build mine), schools, libraries, the military, &etc payed for by tax revenue and used for the benefit of society.  Payed for by the collective will of society, and her pocket book...


People will never work together. Period.

You'll say it's because of people like me. CORRECT!! .. and there are billions of us.


    Can you tell me why we came together in the first place?  I highly doubt it was to sell each other insurance...

  Maybe our basic difference is how we view ourselves in society.  I think we're all part of the same endeavor, and therefore have certain responsibilities toward one another.  One need not be communist to see how giving someone a sandwich might actually stop them from robbing a corner convenience store.  It's all a matter of what you want....

  Society is an elected responsibility, not just a playground for hedonistic obsession...
 

  Dependency upon the state or an employer to provide these things is socialism in concept.  Paved roads could be, too, as well as the houses we live in (I know I didn't build mine), schools, libraries, the military, &etc payed for by tax revenue and used for the benefit of society.  Payed for by the collective will of society, and her pocket book...

    Can you tell me why we came together in the first place?  I highly doubt it was to sell each other insurance...

  Maybe our basic difference is how we view ourselves in society.  I think we're all part of the same endeavor, and therefore have certain responsibilities toward one another.  One need not be communist to see how giving someone a sandwich might actually stop them from robbing a corner convenience store.  It's all a matter of what you want....

  Society is an elected responsibility, not just a playground for hedonistic obsession...
 


I can't argue with your logic. True.. although by that definition, everything is set up in a socialist manner. After all, we always rely on something or someone for all manner of things at every stage of our life.
I think you're missing the point.. well.. no, you're not. You're smart enough to turn it, you're smart enough to get it.  ;)

Oh come on.  We don't really have a "socialist" system in America.  If the average working stiff loses his job, he's screwed.  The "safety net" here for the average family only kicks in once you've already lost everything.  In fact, when you applies for "transitional assistance" in this country, you have to sell your car if it's worth anything.  Since you need a car to get by in most of the U.S., that's just a form of state sadism.  Yeah, it's not called "welfare" anymore, it's called "transitional assistance," because it helps you transition from indigence...to more indigence!  E. Scrooge would be proud!
::)

BTW, I saw a few more clips from the 1/2 Hour News Hour last night.  It seems like the writing staff is the editorial board a college Republican club rag!  There's really not much to differentiate it from the rest of the programming on the FOX Noise channel!
:D 

Oh come on.  We don't really have a "socialist" system in America.  If the average working stiff loses his job, he's screwed.  The "safety net" here for the average family only kicks in once you've already lost everything.  In fact, when you applies for "transitional assistance" in this country, you have to sell your car if it's worth anything.  Since you need a car to get by in most of the U.S., that's just a form of state sadism.  Yeah, it's not called "welfare" anymore, it's called "transitional assistance," because it helps you transition from indigence...to more indigence!  E. Scrooge would be proud!
::)


  I was merely pointing out, primarily as an aside, that we in the U.S. do persue a form of "socialism", whether or not we're aware of it.  Employer-based health care, for instance, the employer taking on the role of the "government".  I'm sure I can find a laundry list if I dug deeper...

  Hey, wanna see something neat..?  How 'bout Socialism in the U.S. Constitution..?  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7...tee-hee... :D

  In any case,  I don’t advocate Socialism because it is a non-functional idea.  I don’t advocate Capitalism for the same reason.  The difference is that nobody really advocates Capitalism.  In fact, the term Capitalism tends to be much more used and defined by the detractors of the free market than by its proponents groove ;) on...

   I was merely pointing out, primarily as an aside, that we in the U.S. do persue a form of "socialism", whether or not we're aware of it.  Employer-based health care, for instance, the employer taking on the role of the "government".  I'm sure I can find a laundry list if I dug deeper...

   Hey, wanna see something neat..?  How 'bout Socialism in the U.S. Constitution..?  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7...tee-hee... :D

   In any case,  I don’t advocate Socialism because it is a non-functional idea.  I don’t advocate Capitalism for the same reason.  The difference is that nobody really advocates Capitalism.  In fact, the term Capitalism tends to be much more used and defined by the detractors of the free market than by its proponents groove ;) on...

It depends on how one defines "socialism" and "capitalism."  If we take the success ove Western Europe, for instance, we can see socialism will flourish interwoven with capitalism, and capitalism will flourish interwoven with socialism.  What democratic socialism--I'm not taking Lenin or Mao here--reallly strangles is the robber baron class.  That is, the unpatriotic leeches who thrive on worker insecurity, job outsourcing, the national debt, and the deterioration of our social and phyiscal infrastructure. 

I don't agree that employee-based healthcare is socialistic.  The employee pays the premium out of his or her check.  Perhaps there's a socialist principle in "pooled risk," so if you get leukemia it's not going  to bankrupt your family.  Of course, the Right doesn't even believe in that.  If you get leukemia, mister, it was YOUR responsibility to choose a hardier genetic line to be born into, so TOUGH!  If your kid is born with Down Syndrome, maybe you should have counted those chromosomes more carefully, ever think about that, eh?

I was both disgusted and amused when I had a health plan for a job  i had seven years ago under which I had to pay $45.00 per visit to get my genetically inherited depression treated, whereas Joe Shmo who smoked 8 packs a day of his own volition could get his hospital treatments covered 100%!
::)

Employer-bases healthcare worked a bit better in the old days when labor unions pressured management to do right by the employee.  In this age of out-sourcing, low-wage service sector jobs, and temp agencies, employer-based care simply doesn't work.  It ain't like the old days where you started at GM or Rubbermaid when you woer 20 and stayed ther until you were 65!

Oh, and my earlier remark about the U.S. not having any safety net was NOT directed at you, Davester!
;)

I saw the show last night. What a wasted half hour. It wasn't even remotely funny. Bill O'Reilly's show is funnier.



Cat