YES! *doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 6th, 2010 5:34pm PDT - doublepromote requested by Issykitty.

I can see what Maher is saying here and he does have some good points. Scolding Jon Stewart for his awesome rally is not something I'm about to get on board with. Jon Stewart is funnier, wittier, smarter, and a better entertainer than Bill Maher.

Jon can do whatever the fuck he wants and if you don't like it you can suck it. I watch Jon Stewart for entertainment and I weep for the country who's media can't get it's shit together. I don't scold Jon Stewart for not being the bastion of hope some people want him to be. Everyone can get up off their ass and do something about it if they don't like how our media is run. Scolding Jon Stewart is a waste of energy and time on something that ain't fucking broke.

^Ah, don't get so offended. I have a feeling Jon and Steve would find this perspective thoughtful. Stewart and Colbert have, themselves, both commented on the fallacy of 'there are two equally valid points of view to every issue'.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.

I don't entirely disagree with what Maher is saying here, but I think he was missing part of the point Jon Stewart was trying to make. True, the extremists on the right are much worse than the ones on the left, but there are extremists on both sides. The point is that these extremists are feeding each other. There is no doubt that during the Bush era, the right has refined FUD down to an art, but now the left is starting to try and play the same game, which just makes things worse. It's distracting the public, and hindering progress, because it's always easier to bash the other guys argument than to come up with a better alternative.

That was excellent. Best *quality rant of his in a very ong time.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by geo321.

*quality

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by jwray.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, November 7th, 2010 12:32am PDT - promote requested by jwray.

... Everyone can get up off their ass and do something about it if they don't like how our media is run. Scolding Jon Stewart is a waste of energy and time on something that ain't fucking broke.
(said Yogi)


While the U.S electoral system is corrupt and the mainstream media is by practice and format incapable of relaying what's going on around the world. It astonishes me the amount of high quality independent media being created in the States. Being from Canada we really don't have have an equivalent to a show like Democray Now! (this Friday had a great show BTW)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^Ah, don't get so offended. I have a feeling Jon and Steve would find this perspective thoughtful. Stewart and Colbert have, themselves, both commented on the fallacy of 'there are two equally valid points of view to every issue'.


If they've done that then Maher should shut up further. In fact he should turn inside out with the completeness of his shut uppery! Because he's not just out of order he's just factually wrong.

Is this pre-November 2nd Maher?

Why would anyone believe obama is a socialist? Oh I don't know, the massive, ineffectual spending above and beyond the original Bush failout, commiecare, nationalized auto industry, nationalized student loan industry, nationalized banking...stuff like that.

None of that shit would have had to been nationalized or bought if republicans hadn't deregulated banking and trade. Obama didn't want to nationalize anything, He did it because all of his economic advisor's told him the apocalypse would fall on America if he didn't pass the economic stimulus bill. Why is it that people refuse to use their common sense when they think about politics. The republicans are the majority of the problem, but they love to cry about how they are so damn responsible with money.

quantumushroom do you really believe Obama would have made a move at trying to buy the banks if they were not about to go bankrupt and potentially put the nation into a great depression. He is not a socialist, he is a realist, and Republicans love to victimize him for it, and convince people like you he is 'Socialist' 'Muslim'. It's silly and I feel bad for Obama he probably thought our country was better than that.

Do you realize that, in your attempt to refute his point, you are actually providing evidence to support it? Nationalized student loan industry? Do you ever stop and think of how stupid some of the things that you've been trained to say actually sound? I'm not trying to insult. A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Is this pre-November 2nd Maher?
Why would anyone believe obama is a socialist? Oh I don't know, the massive, ineffectual spending above and beyond the original Bush failout, commiecare, nationalized auto industry, nationalized student loan industry, nationalized banking...stuff like that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.


I don't know, it doesn't sound that far fetched to me.

@quantumushroom and @blankfist

It's called Sallie Mae.
It's got a government Charter and gets its funds from the government.

Hence @dystopianfuturetoday's cockeyed look.
~~~

Side Note -

Just admit it Quantum. Democrats and Republicans are all the same.

Do you sincerely think all these Republicans are just gonna give up their power and stop funneling tax dollars toward corporations that "donate" to re-elect them?

If you're gonna be angry about the left you HAVE to be equally as angry about the right.

Dems are playing minor league ball compared to the GOP.

"No Big Government! ..Unless it's the Red Team increasing the national debt, then it's okay.."

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.

I don't know, it doesn't sound that far fetched to me.

^Exactly.

My house caught on fire and I had to call the Nationalized High Temperature Oxidation Regulation Stromtrooper Force to come and put it out. Those government goons completely ruined my carpet by squirting fluoridated water -the same kind they put in toilets- all over it from water based hose cannon weaponry guns. Tyranny!

Do you realize that, in your attempt to refute his point, you are actually providing evidence to support it? Nationalized student loan industry? Do you ever stop and think of how stupid some of the things that you've been trained to say actually sound? I'm not trying to insult. A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.

How "trained" does one have to be to see the results of obamania? High unemployment, weakness to delight our enemies, cronies and closested communists infiltrating DC, the demoting of American exceptionalism by a community organizer who never worked a day in his life?

This POS Bill was snuck into obama's commiecare atrocity...

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act

By having the government take over all federal student loan organizations, it would involve one of the largest expansions of a government program in recent memory. It would dismantle a system that has successfully served generations of Americans. Within a decade the Federal Direct Loan Program would be a trillion dollar operation, making it one of the biggest banks in the world. It would ultimately have responsibility for tens of millions of borrowers...
-- America's Student Loan Providers (July 21, 2009)

^Dude! Who the fuck is against student loans? Sorry kids, but we can't afford to give you a student loan, we need that money to pay for a big tax giveaway to corporations and billionaires. We can't be loaning out money to people who want to educate themselves, get a decent job, pay back the loan with interest and become productive members of the economy. Better to give it to rich people, who can trickle that money down on these would-be students, $7.20 an hour as a sales associate at Wal*Mart.

quantumushroom do you really believe Obama would have made a move at trying to buy the banks if they were not about to go bankrupt and potentially put the nation into a great depression. He is not a socialist, he is a realist, and Republicans love to victimize him for it, and convince people like you he is 'Socialist' 'Muslim'. It's silly and I feel bad for Obama he probably thought our country was better than that.

Forget for a moment that Obama grew up around and among angry leftist radicals and his past is well-hidden by compliant MSM.

Why would anyone think nationalization is going to save anything? The soviet union--with natural resources far greater than the US--was 100% nationalized and failed. Yes we were told that only by thugverment spending money would we all be saved from another Great Depression (which was actually prolonged by thugverment spending).

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR's treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote in his diary: 'We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!'"


Yes, Bush the half-servative was responsible for the first round of failouts. Obama just greatly expanded on his predecessors' failure.

Just admit it Quantum. Democrats and Republicans are all the same.

In some ways they are, in others they ain't. There's enough differences to vote.

Do you sincerely think all these Republicans are just gonna give up their power and stop funneling tax dollars toward corporations that "donate" to re-elect them?

No. But why would you assume that only Republicans are in bed with corporations, and only taxocrats care about the "working man?" Corruption is the grease of democracy.

If you're gonna be angry about the left you HAVE to be equally as angry about the right.

That's where the Tea Party originated; anger about both sides being corrupt in their own ways. A few States should threaten to secede. The federal mafia is too big and too stupid to correct course, assuming they're even trying.

Dems are playing minor league ball compared to the GOP.

No, they're probably about the same. I've observed that there's more prosperity when taxocrats are out of power than in power. I'm disappointed when republicans fail to live up to expectations, but livid when taxocrats exceed theirs.

i found the clip at
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-disses-the-daily-show-rally-its-better-to-have-a-rally-thats-about-something/

i looked for the embed. Until my brain started saying... why do they need 1954 lines of code to pass a fucking url to a flash control.



<script type="text/javascript">
if (
(navigator.userAgent.indexOf('iPhone') > -1) ||
(navigator.userAgent.indexOf('iPad') > -1) ||
(navigator.userAgent.indexOf('iPod') > -1) ||
(navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Android') > -1)
) {
$('mvp-media-player-insertion-1').innerHTML = '<video width="1660" height="838" src="/item/video/J3LRXR0RZDCY9CX9?link=http://videos.cache.magnify.net/NBP03B3CY7TR3RXZ-0-31764_Nov_05_010_483_336_384x256.mp4" autoplay controls poster="http://s3.amazonaws.com/magnifythumbs/NBP03B3CY7TR3RXZ-l.jpg"></video> '
}
</script>


what language is "$('mvp-media-player-insertion-1').innerHTML ="
anyhow?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^Dude! Who the fuck is against student loans? Sorry kids, but we can't afford to give you a student loan, we need that money to pay for a big tax giveaway to corporations and billionaires. We can't being loaning out money to people so that they can educate themselves, get a decent job, pay back the loan with interest and become a productive member of the economy. Better to give it to rich people, who can trickle that money down on these would-be students, $7.20 an hour as a sales associate at Wal Mart.

A bit of a fallacy you're working there, hombre. Taking loans away doesn't mean corporate and billionaire tax giveaways. That aside, I haven't read any of the conversation above, so don't expect this to be an intelligent response (not that you would anyhow), but it's not the loans I have a problem with, because those get paid back with interest, it's the welfare. But that's me.

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.

However you are going to have a hard time if you are trying to convince me that FDR's government spending didn't help our country through the great depression. The New Deal and the Emergency Banking Act are highly regarded as key pieces of legislation that helped our country recover. The banking act is an instance where the Government stepped in to fix some broken systems. Hell he closed down banks if they didn't meet the criteria he demanded. That's not very free market, but the free market is flawed in some regards. It requires legislation to fix the problems. I am studying Economics in school right now, and I will not budge on this issue. Government needs to be involved in our economy, it would be a disaster if nothing is regulated. This means that at times policies that you see as socialist need to be passed, and 99% of the time these policies will cost tax-payer money.

We don't need to polarize the issue either. Passing some "socialist policies" such as buying banks that have gone bankrupt to help our Economy does not make our state similar to Soviet Russia.

By the way. If you still think the Tea Party is still for the people sick of both parties and who want change and more reasonable spending/taxation, look who is funding the Tea Party now. It has been bought out by the rich, and is now probably less genuine than either the republican or democratic party. A shame, but that's that state of our Nation.

On the student loan question, which sounds more like a boondoggle?

A) Government subsidizes private lending to students. Banks get to keep the profit, but the government assumes all risk on the loans (meaning the gov't pays the bank if the student defaults).

B) The government just loans money to students.

Option A) is a big taxpayer giveaway to private banks, since the banks provide no added value, assume no risk, and yet still get to pocket a huge chunk of the money as "profit".

Option B) provides the same service to students, but at greater efficiency since it's eliminated massive payouts to private banks functioning as middlemen.

Hidden option C) (for Conservative!) is to say that government shouldn't be distorting the credit markets by trying to make a certain type of loan cheaper, but that brings us back to DFT's rhetorical "Who the fuck is against student loans?"

As for the socialism vs. free markets thing, I think it's important to note that once you've made the decision on moral or societal grounds that your government should intervene in the market to produce a desired effect, "socialism" can easily wind up being the most efficient path to providing the desired outcome, especially when what we're talking about is just moving money around.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Do you realize that, in your attempt to refute his point, you are actually providing evidence to support it? Nationalized student loan industry? Do you ever stop and think of how stupid some of the things that you've been trained to say actually sound? I'm not trying to insult. A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.
How "trained" does one have to be to see the results of obamania? High unemployment, weakness to delight our enemies, cronies and closested communists infiltrating DC, the demoting of American exceptionalism by a community organizer who never worked a day in his life?
This POS Bill was snuck into obama's commiecare atrocity...
Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act
By having the government take over all federal student loan organizations, it would involve one of the largest expansions of a government program in recent memory. It would dismantle a system that has successfully served generations of Americans. Within a decade the Federal Direct Loan Program would be a trillion dollar operation, making it one of the biggest banks in the world. It would ultimately have responsibility for tens of millions of borrowers...
-- America's Student Loan Providers (July 21, 2009)


Holy shit, shroom. Direct lending of student loans is the only reasonable way to fix the mess of a system that we had. Do you have any idea what the status quo was? 1) Student Loan Industry lends money to students. 2) The loans are ZERO RISK to the Industry because a) it is the only type of debt that bankruptcy does not wipe out and b) the government guarantees the loans. 3) The Industry gets the interest on the loans--paid by the government, in the case of subsidized loans.

Student loans are FREE, RISK FREE money for the banks. They are guaranteed to collect. That is why they have such an axe to grind. This is their golden goose. And the government was already the one lending the money, in effect, because they were guaranteeing them in the first place.

HBO has *deadified this vid, sorry

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Shepppard.

My point is about priorities, in that republicans have a simple two-pronged economic strategy:

1.Cut or stop spending that doesn't benefit corporations. (public health option, student loans, education, social security)
2 Spend money on corporations. (Bush tax cuts, no bid contracts to Halliburton, corporate subsidies, bailouts, expensive weaponry for unnecessary wars, plundering of foreign oil)

Where is the fallacy?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Dude! Who the fuck is against student loans? Sorry kids, but we can't afford to give you a student loan, we need that money to pay for a big tax giveaway to corporations and billionaires. We can't being loaning out money to people so that they can educate themselves, get a decent job, pay back the loan with interest and become a productive member of the economy. Better to give it to rich people, who can trickle that money down on these would-be students, $7.20 an hour as a sales associate at Wal Mart.

A bit of a fallacy you're working there, hombre. Taking loans away doesn't mean corporate and billionaire tax giveaways. That aside, I haven't read any of the conversation above, so don't expect this to be an intelligent response (not that you would anyhow), but it's not the loans I have a problem with, because those get paid back with interest, it's the welfare. But that's me.

Jesus Cristo HBO, we wouldn't want to get people excited about your original programming, now, would we?

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.

No biggie.

Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.

As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.

Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.

Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.

As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.

The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.

Hm - how to put this...

1. Ol' BM has a point when he says that the "Sanity/Fear" rally might as well have just come out and said it was a liberal counter-protest. Because that's what it was. Stewart can try to pop his clown nose off and on all he wants, but his rally was a bought & paid for liberal event. Old HuffPo bought & paid for the bussing. Unions also bought & paid for attendance. The standard array of leftist ding-dongs were the 'entertainment'. But it was a "non-political" rally? Pht - yeah - right...

2. And of course Bill has it 100% wrong when it comes to which side is the one "talking news" and which side is playing with its own poo. The election proved it. Over 65% of the nation rejected libralism and leftist policies - and Barak Obama's agenda specifically. Bill Maher is NOT firmly camped in middle America with all the normal folks. It is Bill Maher, and all those who agree with his leftist dogma, who are the ones dribbling their lips while they drool in a corner. Bill Maher, Olbermann, MadCow, and all the other leftist media are the freaks and kooks here. There are freaks and kooks on both sides to be sure, but for Bill to act like his positions are 'normal' and only the positions of guys like Beck are 'extreme'? If he really believes that then he's got his head so far up his own butt that he can french kiss his own esophagus.

If there was really this 65% land-slide of conservative opinion, why didn't you take back the senate too?

>> ^KnivesOut:

If there was really this 65% land-slide of conservative opinion, why didn't you take back the senate too?


Not only that look at how many people actually vote in these elections...its bullshit to claim everyones mad at Obama particularly when they stay home in droves showing their disdain for the entire system.

lol at quantumushroom's loaded language. "Federal mafia", that's a good one! Except of course the federal mafia is composed of two families, Democrats and Republicans. And they hate each other because the Democrats want to help both Democrats and Republicans but the Republicans only want to help themselves (it's written in the bible!!!).

And the point about the economy being better when Republicans are in office is completely fallacious. The "good economy" of the Bush years was based on war (good for the economy on a short-term basis, but bad in the long run) and shady business practices. Of course, now that we're in the Obama administration, the long-term negative effects of war are starting to show and the economy came crashing when the banks realized their shady business practices were actually non-sustainable (again the banks wanted short-term gains against unknown long-term loses, which didn't happen because they were bailed out. Of course if Obama hadn't bailed them out and people lost everything, then he'd be made to be the bad black demon that didn't help the poor little people). So now the Republicans do what they do best, shifting the blame to the other side. The crazy thing is, it works. It works because Americans don't know shit about taxes or war, they don't know shit about the history of taxes nor the history of war, they don't know shit about how both taxes and war can be used to varying effects. Because after all American history started with taxes and a war, and Americans know all their is to know about taxes and war : War is Good and Taxes are Bad.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Truly words to live by. America should adopt them as its motto and print them on its money. After all, it only elaborates on "In God we trust" : peace is in destroying God's enemies, freedom is in submitting to God's commandments, strength is in having faith in God's all-knowingness. Are they teaching newspeak yet in Sunday school?

If there was really this 65% land-slide of conservative opinion, why didn't you take back the senate too?

Simple math. The Senate has a total of 100 seats. Before the 2010 mid-term, the Democrats held 57 of those seats, and the Republicans only held 41 (with 2 Independants). In order for the GOP to "take the Senate" they would need to obtain 10 senate seats to have a simple majority. That kind of swing is almost unprecedented in the Senate. It just was really unlikely. The house has had volatile swings in the past, but the Senate is generally pretty stable. Considering the GOP had to win in liberal bastions like Delaware, New York, Barbara Boxer's seat, and so on I'd say they did pretty good. And it has to be said the GOP shot itself in the foot when it refused to back tea party types like Angle or O'Donnel. They were long shots sure, but refusing to help them at all when they are the only game on the ground isn't smart either. In the end, Democrats lost their veto-proof majority in the senate, complete control of the House, huge numbers of state governorships and massive numbers in state legislatures across the country. To quote Obama - they got shellaqued.

BS to claim everyones mad at Obama particularly when they stay home in droves showing their disdain for the entire system.

The turnout was quite high. The people who stayed home were Democrats, and largely because they have had to admit that their policies are utterly failing and that their golden boy is to blame.

And the best part of the election is that Mr. Doofus hiself - Alan "Insane" Greyson - lost in a landslide. So long, Mr. Doofus. You will not be missed and America is better for losing you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.
No biggie.
Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.
As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.
Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.
Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.
As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.
The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.


I don't understand this. "The government" should essentially be us. They should be a good friend selling us shit at cost. When I buy weed off my pot dealing friend, he sells it to me at the same price he gets it. Cost. If I buy off the other guy, I pay a good amount more. If the government is the people serving the people, the people are the greatest benefactors.

I think it's wrong that, in Canada, we sell the right to build lines all through our country, and then the we let the people we sold it to(Bell and Rogers) gauge us for an internet connection.

I can see, however, how it could happen that government run programs might have people in charge who want to look good, so they might strive for a profit. I think this is wrong. It would be wrong for them to turn a profit and then redistribute the profit to other government run programs, but even wronger for them to take that profit and give it as bonuses to their CEO's.

At the end of the day, the problem with "Government" is that it doesn't serve the people, and it won't, unless the people keep on top of them.

We need to call a spade a spade. Like the recently passed law stating corporations can donate unlimited amounts, anonymously. How the eff is there not more outrage regarding that? It doesn't essentially mean the ultra rich control politics, no, not essentially, it 100% means the ultra rich control politics. Why not allow each party a set amount? Wake the fuck up...

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population." -Noam Chomsky

Bill is annoying, and he's just pissed because the best he could rally up in DC is three dudes with "legalize it now" signs.

"Good points" sums it up extremely well but this isin't entertainment nor comedy hardly even an atempt at it.

So you got a show and you've got something to say so go on for a rant for 8mins to try and save the world by crapping on 2 others who are in the same position and are trying to achieve the same thing.

He talks about expectations and rolls in society yet he/(they) are comedians trying to make an impact other than give me a chuckle once in a while.

And really, has it become a norm to search for political advise from a comedy show? If so whats next? O'reiley Hardball as comedy? I think not!

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.