Reply With Quote
I guess I could see how it would seem that way to a racist.
He never went after Obama as a Black American. In the end his political correctness came off as reverse racism.
I guess I could see how it would seem that way to a racist.
He went after Bush in every possible way imaginable. Then ignored one entire aspect of Obama that is a centerpiece of his Presidency: race relations.
Stewart leaving with Obama is shameful.
Really though, only racists think race relations is the centerpiece of his presidency.
He made comments about some Little League Baseball team just because they had black players.
Yah right. One major reason he was elected was his race and one political agenda he keeps reiterating is race. He brought up Ferguson at the State of the Union speech.
Reasons Obama was President
1. Not Bush
2. Black
I voted for him 2008. I was a self hating Liberal.
Sure i used extremes to illustrate the absurdity of the principle. But the fact is that someone who earns their money shouldn't have to justify keeping it over someone who needs it because they are out of luck.Brainwashed Repug view of life
So everyone who is unfortunate or can't afford for any number of reasons are 'leeches'?
And yes, businessmen are just great people aren't they?
lol so why was his presidency labeled "transformative" before it was inaugurated?
Real Socialism is the workers owning the means of production.Probably can't even name any actual socialist policies other than the lazy 'welfare and food stamps' BS conservative crap
McDavid going to the Oilers
4-0 humiliation on Banner Night
What you love and what bubba hates is just welfare statism, not socialism even though there is a similar principle behind it.
Welfare Statism is basically Economic Fascism or Corporatism. Not that fascism has to be a pejorative if we discuss the matter objectively.
I'm not familiar with "transformative" being the agreed-upon way to describe his election, but he is the first black President. That's at least significant and a milestone.
Not sure how that makes race relations the centerpiece of his presidency as a policy.
I'm not sure whether a moniker was official is the point, rather at how people looked at his presidency initially. To deny that race was non existant is just like those Republicans who are like, " I see no color, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he free'd the slaves!". It's mildly dishonest, myopic and solipsistic at best.
I didn't suggest race hasn't been an issue or present during his presidency. I said race relations aren't the centerpiece of his presidency.
That's just a oppinion that negates what he has done while in office like; oppining on criminal investigations involving race, injecting himself and having presidential addresses on trivial overblown criminal trials, having his cabinet members show up at Tray Tray's and MB funeral memorial services, having his Justice Dept intercede when those those trials didn't go his way.
I just don't trust you as being anything but a partisan hack with that kind of statement. I mean why do damage control for the prez without pay?
How is it damage control? Calling it damage control assumes the perception that "race relations" is a key platform of Obama's presidency is damaging.
I would see an issue like Domestic Spying as both more central to his presidency and more damaging.
How can you possibly compare the Welfare State to Fascism in anyway at all? That's the sort of thing some dumb Libertarian like Rand Paul would say. Also, what would you describe as 'Real Socialism'? Because the workers owning the means of production is Marxism, not Socialism. Typical Bill O'Reilly way of describing Socialism "ah it's just the same as Communism and Marxism".
"Real Socialism is the workers owning the means of production"
and who, in USA or any industrialized country, is pushing for that red herring?
In Soviet/Iron Curtain Communism everyone had a job. Different than welfare.
You know that is fundamentally untrue. Even during the 1950/60's when the Soviet union was at it's peak it did not have 100% employment - far from it in fact. There were also strong ethnic and nationalist differences within the block that added to economic tensions. The problem with have is that data and information of this period only became available freely for a short time - the current government has taken a backwards step in becoming more revisionist.
Murica
But but but Bill O'Reilly told me Socialism is bad, it must be true
Butthurt socialism actually works
Clippers
'RepeatingPERIOD'
Not even in the ing playoffsO'Reilly
There is no luck.
The issue changes a little if you really look at the right wing economics of it with a social justice element. The current GOP is really portraying the me/mine/always view really well and the economics of it are very short sighted. The 'small government' dream has the expectation that others will pay for what needs to be done. You want healthcare/justice/education for the longer term benefits in reducing costs and reducing crime. You want the wealth spread for the spending benefits...the rich ac ulating wealth reduces the circulation of money in the economy. Paying the minimum amount of tax you are supposed to is fine if it is legal. Is the amount of tax collected good for the economy in a 20 year span - that is a different question. At present China has one political advantage over the USA and the rest of the democratic world - they have a long term plan that they revisit every few years. They plan for decades in advance and if you track what they have planned and where they are now you can see why they own so much of the USA's future prosperity. The contrast is stark - in the USA there is the spectre of the next president being the Koch's president.
Jon Stewart Rejects Arby's Job Offer: "This Motherf—ing Thing Ain't Over"
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/jon-stewar...161517180.html
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bas...ly-show-772421But I’ll admit to being surprisingly taken aback and sad about this news. It will gladden the people who were his biggest targets and it will look like gooey, liberal weepiness to get maudlin about a TV personality moving on to something else. I get that. But Stewart is a national treasure in my book – someone I’ve repeatedly said is one of the funniest people on the planet. You don’t just swap in a new person and all’s well.
And that’s really the early takeaway here. You can’t replace Jon Stewart. The show will undoubtedly go on and Comedy Central will find someone to take over the reins who will valiantly try to keep the standards high and the relevance there. John Oliver proved over the summer, when Stewart was off making his movie Rosewater, that an orderly transition of leadership is possible and that idiots everywhere, but particularly in Washington D.C., will get their due comeuppance via hilarious public flogging. The Daily Show — a watchdog on the media, done with humor but often done so much better than those whose sole job that is, will continue. Ignorance will be roasted. Incompetence will be outed. Bull will be detected.
I think the guy gets it right.
Selfishly, which is the gut reaction to something like this, it feels like a painful loss and something that happened too soon. It’s painful all right, but Stewart has been doing it for so long and with a brilliance and elan that defies those years that you can’t argue that he’s earned the right to give it up.
Furthermore, letting go of something you’re great at before you’re not anymore is brave stuff. I applaud him for that. It’s human nature to hang on too long.
another great show, started with Jon saying, after a long silent pause ... "Did I die?"
(because of all the premature obituaries The Day After his announcement)
definitely going to be listening to this with one ear during todays Pointless Conference Call.
*edit*
Praise be to Allah, for the mute button.
why? the reliable 48% will still vote for him if there were an alternative that refused to practice domestic spying.
I would see an issue like Domestic Spying as both more central to his presidency and more damaging.
That would have more to do with his party affiliation than his race. But I disagree that a Republican candidate who pledged to eliminate domestic spying initiatives wouldn't see significantly increased support from centrists and liberals (though he might lose some conservatives who think he's soft on terror.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
