# How Obama Got Elected



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Here's a video of Obama supporters taking a survey concerning their level of election and political knowledge.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

I'm pretty sure - _nay, *certain*_- that the ignorance displayed is not exclusive to people who voted Democrat.

To claim otherwise would be a selective reading of reality is _at best_, egregiously misleading, and at worst, downright _absurd_.

Just so you know, I'm from across the pond, and have no vested interest in whomever you vote(d) for. I'm just posting here because I smell a rat.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

These folks are the reason George W. Bush got elected twice, and how John McCain got 47% of the popular vote.






and these guys too


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

adhoc said:


> I'm pretty sure - _nay, *certain*_- that the ignorance displayed is not exclusive to people who voted Democrat.
> 
> To claim otherwise would be a selective reading of reality is _at best_, egregiously misleading, and at worst, downright _absurd_.
> 
> Just so you know, I'm from across the pond, and have no vested interest in whomever you vote(d) for. I'm just posting here because I smell a rat.


I must agree. Although I voted for McCain for a number of (I hope) coherent reasons I am sure that there are those who voted for him for horrifyingly misguided ones.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

FWIW, exit polling shows that President-elect Obama won 50% of the college graduate vote to 48% for McCain. Obama also won 58% of the postgraduate vote to 40% for McCain.


----------



## wessex (Feb 1, 2008)

If you go to the website https://howobamagotelected.com/ the "scientific" results are a bit more interesting.

The whole study has more to do with the media's bias than how informed or uninformed voters were (on either side of the aisle). I doubt anyone would deny that we heard very little about how Obama won his first election, but EVERYONE heard about Palin's wardrobe exploits.

The campaigning in 57 states thing was rather interesting - wonder if Barry O. was joking or just really tired.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Let's face facts. Ignorant people have the right to vote, and they do... for both parties. Although there are plenty who enjoy pointing out the ignorance of American voters, don't fool yourselves into thinking that this is solely an American phenomenon. Oh, don't we love ignorant people when they vote for 'our' candidate

I crack a wry smile when I hear all the advertisements encouraging *everybody* to get out and vote. I'm really not all that desirous of it.


----------



## omanae (Aug 19, 2008)

What's even more important is how many people are ignorant to the issues on the candidates that their vote can actually elect or reject. The local judges, the county and state wide referendums, the mayor. Whoever you voted for in the presidential election, I'm sorry to say, doesn't matter at all to what happened, and despite what Kevin Costner may try to tell you, it probably never will. I know that's not a great attitude, but it's true, we have the power to change local stuff, the national level stuff is just too big and the electoral college rules any way.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I'm located in Obama central and on a daily basis I hear this nonsense. I would often be privy to conversations regarding Obama and while some were well informed the majority were wholly ignorant of what he stood for or what his positions were on key issues. I even heard one young lady who wasn't sure which party was pro-choice. For many they just got caught up in the party and didn't want to be the one left out. 

While I no doubt imagine that their are GOP voters who are similarly ignorant, it seems that the Dems have a special lock on these people. That's because liberalism seems to be the default political position for those who haven't really taken the time to think about politics. Like the young lady who was asked about re-distribution; from what she knows about it she seems to like it. Liberalism sounds good, help everyone, everyone is equal not only by creation but in qualities and means. Liberalism is full of "should". Things should be even, everyone should have money, everyone should go to college, we should all help each other. 

These are very appealing notions to younger people and those who do not take time to think deeply. They are based on emotion and therefore not well reasoned. Throw in a press that has all but painted this new POTUS the second coming and you can see how Obama won.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Charisma, air-head hope and the media made the difference.

McCain is a lousy speaker compare Obama.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Liberalism is full of "should".


Why shouldn't it be? Why should the status quo be the best possible answer?

And WA, why is hope such a bad thing? A long time ago the idea of a British colony seceding by force seemed an 'air-headed' hope. Why is the ability to inspire such a maligned thing suddenly?

Just curious. :icon_smile:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm located in Obama central and on a daily basis I hear this nonsense. I would often be privy to conversations regarding Obama and while some were well informed the majority were wholly ignorant of what he stood for or what his positions were on key issues. I even heard one young lady who wasn't sure which party was pro-choice. For many they just got caught up in the party and didn't want to be the one left out.
> 
> While I no doubt imagine that their are GOP voters who are similarly ignorant, it seems that the Dems have a special lock on these people. That's because liberalism seems to be the default political position for those who haven't really taken the time to think about politics. Like the young lady who was asked about re-distribution; from what she knows about it she seems to like it. Liberalism sounds good, help everyone, everyone is equal not only by creation but in qualities and means. Liberalism is full of "should". Things should be even, everyone should have money, everyone should go to college, we should all help each other.
> 
> These are very appealing notions to younger people and those who do not take time to think deeply. They are based on emotion and therefore not well reasoned. Throw in a press that has all but painted this new POTUS the second coming and you can see how Obama won.


This is the kind of smug, self-congratulatory comment that is all to common among a certain segment of conservatives.

What we have seen repeatedly over the last eight years is a deliberate attempt, largely successful, by the Republicans to distort the truth and mislead the public. As a consequence, we have repeatedly seen that surveys show that a high percentage of people who support the war in Iraq continue to believe the Bush position that Hussein was in possession of so-called weapons of mass destruction and was involved in the 2001 terrorist attacks, and that a high percentage of the supporters of the Bush economic package expect to be liable for the federal estate tax (as opposed to the tiny percentage of estates that are actually subject to the tax).

But if you think the best way back to power is to insult the majority of Americans who elected a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate by calling them stupid, go right ahead.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> While I no doubt imagine that their are GOP voters who are similarly ignorant.


You have to use your imagination? That must be tough.

Buzz


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> This is the kind of smug, self-congratulatory comment that is all to common among a certain segment of conservatives.
> 
> What we have seen repeatedly over the last eight years is a deliberate attempt, largely successful, by the Republicans to distort the truth and mislead the public...


Are there any elected (Democrat or Republican) officials, serving beyond a second term, who do not operate in the manner you described(!)?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> What we have seen repeatedly over the last eight years is a deliberate attempt, largely successful, by the Republicans to distort the truth and mislead the public. As a consequence, we have repeatedly seen that surveys show that a high percentage of people who support the war in Iraq continue to believe the Bush position that Hussein was in possession of so-called weapons of mass destruction and was involved in the 2001 terrorist attacks


You should see someone about that knee of yours. It seems to jerk uncontrollably.

The Republicans did these things (and continue to do them) using the same propaganda techniques that the media and the DNC (but I repeat myself) used to elect Obama.

They are merely refinements of many of the techniques pioneered (as applied to politics, at least) by the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson and his buddies (Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays) to get us into WWI.

Don't get me wrong -- that's the nature of the modern corporate State. It is the same whether the Republocrats win or the Demublicans. The winner is merely the one who can deploy these tactics more effectively.

(Another way to predict the winner is to identify the one who can raise the most money. Although, you should notice that the media squawking about "buying the election" seems to have died down lately. Gee, which candidate raised more money this time around? Which candidate turned off all of the anti-fraud measures on his pay-by-credit-card website when collecting massive amounts of anonymous and pseudonymous "donations" that happen to fall below the reporting requirements?)


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Are there any elected (Democrat or Republican) officials, serving beyond a second term, who do not operate in the manner you described(!)?


You betcha! :icon_smile_wink:

Buzz


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> But if you think the best way back to power is to insult the majority of Americans who elected a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate by calling them stupid, go right ahead.


Wait a second...that's exactly what Democrats did for the last 8 years, it seems to have worked pretty well.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Are there any elected (Democrat or Republican) officials, serving beyond a second term, who do not operate in the manner you described(!)?


My Representative and Senators: Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Agree or disagree with them, they do not engage in Rovian tactics.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Wait a second...that's exactly what Democrats did for the last 8 years, it seems to have worked pretty well.


It's actually not, but you've amply shown yourself to be impervious to reality, so I'm not surprised.


----------



## charms (Mar 24, 2007)

Obama won the college graduate vote by 2 points and the postgraduate vote by 18 points. On top of that, Obama won the $200,000+ income bracket by 6 points.

If Republicans are losing their appeal among both educated people _and_ rich people, they might want to consider some serious self-examination before the next election. Hint: try not to be openly disdainful of educated people in some misguided attempt to appeal to REAL Americans. Our elected officials should be smart. It's a lot more important than being folksy, really it is. That really shouldn't require an explanation.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Because the black majority wanted him as President and they thought he could do a good job.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> It's actually not, but you've amply shown yourself to be impervious to reality, so I'm not surprised.


Uh huh...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

charms said:


> Obama won the college graduate vote by 2 points and the postgraduate vote by 18 points. On top of that, Obama won the $200,000+ income bracket by 6 points.


Haven't you been paying attention? These people may be well-educated and rich, but they're _stupid_, well-educated, rich people.

Just listen to hopkins_student--he'll set you straight.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> This is the kind of smug, self-congratulatory comment that is all to common among a certain segment of conservatives.
> 
> What we have seen repeatedly over the last eight years is a deliberate attempt, largely successful, by the Republicans to distort the truth and mislead the public. As a consequence, we have repeatedly seen that surveys show that a high percentage of people who support the war in Iraq continue to believe the Bush position that Hussein was in possession of so-called weapons of mass destruction and was involved in the 2001 terrorist attacks, and that a high percentage of the supporters of the Bush economic package expect to be liable for the federal estate tax (as opposed to the tiny percentage of estates that are actually subject to the tax).
> 
> But if you think the best way back to power is to insult the majority of Americans who elected a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate by calling them stupid, go right ahead.


Jack, 
I'm defending conservatism, the conservatism of Burke and Russell Kirk, against liberalism. I'm not defending the Bush administration. The Bush administration has become the grandest of straw men for hitting conservatives over the head. I suppose in way we have only ourselves to blame for allowing our elected officials to lose their way, but the principles of conservatism are still strong and resonate with the people.

You might find what I say smug, but that does not annul its truth.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

adhoc said:


> Why shouldn't it be? Why should the status quo be the best possible answer?
> 
> And WA, why is hope such a bad thing? A long time ago the idea of a British colony seceding by force seemed an 'air-headed' hope. Why is the ability to inspire such a maligned thing suddenly?
> 
> Just curious. :icon_smile:


Your prove my point exactly! One can be inspired by the truth that is right in front of us. Liberalism asks that we scrap the truth as has unfolded over centuries of human history and the collected wisdom of those generations for some abstract truth. Obama's "hope" is abstract. Can anyone honestly say what his "hope" is all about.

By the way, when the colonies revolted, they did not cling to some abstract and new concept. Their appeal and justification was to the ancient rights of Englishmen established in common law!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> My Representative and Senators: Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.
> 
> Agree or disagree with them, they do not engage in Rovian tactics.


They don't have to. They don't have any competition. That's why they have atrophied.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

Atrophied? What do you mean?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Jack,
> I'm defending conservatism, the conservatism of Burke and Russell Kirk, against liberalism. I'm not defending the Bush administration. The Bush administration has become the grandest of straw men for hitting conservatives over the head. I suppose in way we have only ourselves to blame for allowing our elected officials to lose their way, but the principles of conservatism are still strong and resonate with the people.
> 
> You might find what I say smug, but that does not annul its truth.


Okay, then let me be clearer. It's smug, without the advantage of truth.

And you may not like it, but Bush is what conservatism is:

Favors the wealthy over the disadvantaged at every opportunity.

Militaristic to the point of imperialism.

Simplistic, dualistic view of international dynamics.

Hostile to civil liberties, and evidencing a fondness for repressive police and military policies.

Committed to using the powers of government to enforce conservative moral and religious values.

Opposed to using the powers of government to serve the common good or to redress the legitimate grievances of disadvantaged groups.

Hostile to environmental protection or other impediments to unrestrained capitalism.

Oh, and if you haven't noticed, Burke left the building a long time ago.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> Atrophied? What do you mean?


They're hardly innovators. Listening to both Kerry and Kennedy all I hear is grandstanding and showboating passing for parliamentary debate. As for Frank, on the one issue that he is supposed to be a superstar in, finance and banking, he's on record saying that Fannie and Freddie were not in trouble. Now he's vying for a auto bailout bill.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, then let me be clearer. It's smug, without the advantage of truth.
> 
> And you may not like it, but Bush is what conservatism is:
> 
> ...


Jack, 
I'm sure that's what you would want conservatism to be, but its not. And Burke has not left the building, he's just using the head.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Jack,
> I'm sure that's what you would want conservatism to be, but its not. And Burke has not left the building, he's just using the head.


No, I would probably like it a lot better if they were really the way you think they are. Sadly, wishing doesn't make it so.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm sure that's what you would want conservatism to be, but its not.


From across the pond Down Under, and throughout Europe, I'm pretty sure that is what people perceive.

His evaluation is pretty much spot on - the Republican Party as I understand it is hardly run by _fiscal _conservatives anymore; _social_ conservatives have taken over the helm. Hawkish, anti-this, anti-that, social conservatives, who apparently fail to realise that granting other groups rights they have is not somehow going to invalidate the rights social conservatives already hold (e.g. if I include a further definition of the word 'family', it won't make your pre-existing family any less valid).

I'm sure you'd leap up and claim 'liberal media bias', but the fact remains that sometimes actions do speak louder than words (2 wars, the anti-choice stance, the obviously dysfunctional thrust towards abstinence, the Patriot Act, etc). We're also on the receiving end of whatever foreign policy your government chooses to enact.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

adhoc said:


> And WA, why is hope such a bad thing? A long time ago the idea of a British colony seceding by force seemed an 'air-headed' hope. Why is the ability to inspire such a maligned thing suddenly?
> 
> Just curious. :icon_smile:


Nothing wrong with hope, I just like something attached to it so I would know what I'm voteing for or against. Obama just said hope, but no direction. Or, you could say his directions kept changeing. Voteing for Obama is like voteing with a signed check but the amount is for him to fill out. Would you sign a blank check and hand it to somebody? In a way I think more than 50% of the people did.

With Reagan there was lots of hope but, clear direction, too.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

WA said:


> Nothing wrong with hope, I just like something attached to it so I would know what I'm voteing for or against. Obama just said hope, but no direction. Or, you could say his directions kept changeing. Voteing for Obama is like voteing with a signed check but the amount is for him to fill out. Would you sign a blank check and hand it to somebody? In a way I think more than 50% of the people did.
> 
> With Reagan there was lots of hope but, clear direction, too.


what are you talking about? the obama campaign was pretty specific on the issues/policies it would try and tacklet. on foreign policy, engagement over unilateralism. on iraq, a significant drawdown of combat troops - which interestingly enough the iraqi parliament has recently agreed to. on health care, something approaching universal health care although the issue of mandates and enforcement have yet to be finalized. on taxes, letting the bush tax cuts expire next year and pass tax cuts directed towards families making under 250K. if you actually care about the issues, it shouldn't be difficult to find out what the obama campaign has said about them. sounds like you're just repeating talking points. i


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> what are you talking about? the obama campaign was pretty specific on the issues/policies it would try and tacklet. on foreign policy, engagement over unilateralism. on iraq, a significant drawdown of combat troops - which interestingly enough the iraqi parliament has recently agreed to. on health care, something approaching universal health care although the issue of mandates and enforcement have yet to be finalized. on taxes, letting the bush tax cuts expire next year and pass tax cuts directed towards families making under 250K. if you actually care about the issues, it shouldn't be difficult to find out what the obama campaign has said about them. sounds like you're just repeating talking points. i


And you're not repeating talking points? The problem is the disconnect between Obama's vision of how the world works vs. the way it really is. Obama's vision is one where an all powerful government entity directs societies resources in a way that is advantageous to all. A century of history has proven how dangerous this can be.

As for foreign policy, I pray the things that he said during the campaign was just rhetoric for the left.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Obama's vision is one where an all powerful government entity directs societies resources in a way that is advantageous to all. A century of history has proven how dangerous this can be.


Your slight exaggeration aside, that's how most governments in the developed world do it (mine included). They seem fine to me. The world has kept running, and the sky has not fallen. Nor are we, the people, reduced to cogs in some socialist machine.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Am I missing something here?


Yes, you are. It's called Fabianism, and it's a strategy of creating this socialist cog-system you mentioned, but doing it so slowly and incrementally that people like you, without the benefit of any perspective on the historical facts, don't notice or care.

Socialistic policies create problems like we have seen in the financial sector, and in the auto sector. Then, when these industries fail, government steps in, blames the problems on the market, and uses the chaos and fear that they created to, you guessed it, implement even more socialistic economic policies.

This is the plan. This is the system. This is the agenda.

George W. Bush is part of it, having massively expanded the size and scope of government, added massive new benefits to socialized medicine, and done more to socialize the financial sector than FDR could have ever accomplished in another 3 or 4 terms in office.

In other words, everything that's wrong with Bush is that he's far too much of a left-liberal. It's the "neo" in neoconservatism that's the problem with conservatism.

The "social" conservative policies are just window-dressing. Economic policies are the only thing that matters, really. Politicians cynically use issues like abortion and marriage and religion to get campaign contributions, not because they really believe in them or care about them as issues. Social issues are marketing techniques, for both parties. Meanwhile, billions of dollars are being looted out the back door, with the approval and support of both parties.

(By the way, I am particularly sickened to hear all of this infantile noise and hand-wringing about how the Patriot Act and domestic civil liberties and militarism are this huge problem. You read it here first -- Obama will *NOT* dismantle the domestic Homeland Security apparatus that he is inheriting, will *NOT* dispose of the brigade of soldiers that are now being deployed for active duty inside these United States. He will, of course, make some penny ante _symbolic_ gestures to throw some red meat to his namby-pamby lefty supporters, but since I have no doubt that Obama is totally lacking in moral fiber and character and a political whore of the finest quality, I fully expect that he will do *nothing of substance* to curb the growing domestic police state. In fact, when the next terror strike happens, I expect Obama will, if for no other reason than to deflect criticism, which he cannot tolerate, and to assert his security _bona fides_, take actions that, were they to be taken by a Republican, would be denounced on the spot by the peanut gallery as the descent of the Dark Night of Fascism. Count on it.)


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

If you are proved wrong, will you recant and apologise?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

If I am proved wrong, I will dance in the streets.

But you don't get it -- to save the political viability of, for example, his medical industry socialization agenda, or his carbon tax plan, or some other welfare measure, which are the only things that he really cares about, Obama _will_ break any and all promises when it comes to so-called national security. The Right will call him "weak", and, like Clinton bombing aspirin factories, Obama will implement some outrageous military/security/spying activity, either foreign or domestic.

Obama's economic agenda is to be protected, at all costs. Everything else is negotiable. That's how it works.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

Only time will tell, I suppose. 

I only wish you all (Americans) the best of luck. I actually find it heartwarming to see people care this much about politics and the future of their country that they will freely hurl vitriol on an internet discussion board! But that's just me...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

adhoc said:


> Your slight exaggeration aside, that's how most governments in the developed world do it (mine included). They seem fine to me. The world has kept running, and the sky has not fallen. Nor are we, the people, reduced to cogs in some socialist machine.
> 
> Am I missing something here?





Phinn said:


> Yes, you are. It's called Fabianism, and it's a strategy of creating this socialist cog-system you mentioned, but doing it so slowly and incrementally that people like you, without the benefit of any perspective on the historical facts, don't notice or care.


https://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/

And we all know how the story ends.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> They're hardly innovators. Listening to both Kerry and Kennedy all I hear is grandstanding and showboating passing for parliamentary debate. As for Frank, on the one issue that he is supposed to be a superstar in, finance and banking, he's on record saying that Fannie and Freddie were not in trouble. Now he's vying for a auto bailout bill.


IMHO, you're ill-informed regarding Barney's record on Fannie & Freddie, which, as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman points out, played a negligible role in the subprime mortgage crisis.

As for Kennedy and Kerry, I don't know what you're hearing. But, IMHO, Senator Kennedy support, for example, of universal health coverage is neither showboating nor grandstanding. May I suggest the possibility of disagreeing with them on substance without trying to make fun of them?


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> https://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/
> 
> And we all know how the story ends.


Interesting reading.

Actually, Britain post-war more or less followed quite a few of the things outlined in that pamphlet, and clearly is not a dictatorship today.

*Remember, it only takes one contrary result to render a 'law' invalid.*

It also says nothing in _support _of laissez faire capitalism, in case you're wondering.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

adhoc said:


> Actually, Britain post-war more or less followed quite a few of the things outlined in that pamphlet, and clearly is not a dictatorship today.
> 
> *Remember, it only takes one contrary result to render a 'law' invalid.*
> 
> It also says nothing in _support _of laissez faire capitalism, in case you're wondering.


If you read TRTS it goes into quite a bit more depth. GB had the advantage of centuries of freedom and institutionalized respect for private property. It also had the advantage of common law.

The larger point is who should we trust, the collective wisdom of a free peoples all pursuing individual interests or a central authority directed by one or a few people.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> If you read TRTS it goes into quite a bit more depth. GB had the advantage of centuries of freedom and institutionalized respect for private property. It also had the advantage of common law.
> 
> The larger point is who should we trust, the collective wisdom of a free peoples all pursuing individual interests or a central authority directed by one or a few people.


Thanks for that - valid points indeed. Where there is a long history of freedom, I tend to think it will endure (an example illustrating the opposite would be China). But as the principal author of your Declaration of Independence put it - 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance'.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

adhoc said:


> But as the principal author of your Declaration of Independence put it - 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance'.


Vigilance....not radicalism.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> IMHO, you're ill-informed regarding Barney's record on Fannie & Freddie, which, as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman points out, played a negligible role in the subprime mortgage crisis.
> 
> As for Kennedy and Kerry, I don't know what you're hearing. But, IMHO, Senator Kennedy support, for example, of universal health coverage is neither showboating nor grandstanding. May I suggest the possibility of disagreeing with them on substance without trying to make fun of them?


A thing is as a thing does. Frank, Kennedy and Kerry are law makers. What have they done to improve my life. While they certainly have done much to bring pork into their states, in all the years and Kennedy and Kerry have represented MA. in the senate what have they done of substance. I suppose one could pick any number of legislators on either side of the aisle and say the same, we're talking about these two specifically.

When have they really been challenged. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, did Kennedy get anything done on health care? As for Barney Frank, I'm not surprised that Krugman defends him. Krugman is hardly a dispassionate arbiter of economic theory. He's a political liberal and had Frank been a republican he would have been singing a different tune. I don't need Krugman to tell me about Fannie/Freddie. They had unlimited ability to buy loans (thanks to Congress and Frank) with little oversight. Banks felt safe lending to risky borrowers and then turning around and selling the loan to the GSE's; no risky loan....no problem!


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> If you read TRTS it goes into quite a bit more depth. GB had the advantage of centuries of freedom and institutionalized respect for private property. It also had the advantage of common law.
> 
> The larger point is who should we trust, the collective wisdom of a free peoples all pursuing individual interests or a central authority directed by one or a few people.


You pose a false dichotomy. We need not choose between anarchy and tyranny. In all events, as citizens of a representative democracy, we enjoy, as that great Republican President Abraham Lincoln put it, "government by the people." Indeed our system of laws has been referred to as "those wise restraints that make us free."

Nor is it self-evident that the principles that ought to govern a (well-regulated) economy are the same principles that ought to govern our polity.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> A thing is as a thing does. Frank, Kennedy and Kerry are law makers. What have they done to improve my life. While they certainly have done much to bring pork into their states, in all the years and Kennedy and Kerry have represented MA. in the senate what have they done of substance. I suppose one could pick any number of legislators on either side of the aisle and say the same, we're talking about these two specifically.
> 
> When have they really been challenged. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, did Kennedy get anything done on health care? As for Barney Frank, I'm not surprised that Krugman defends him. Krugman is hardly a dispassionate arbiter of economic theory. He's a political liberal and had Frank been a republican he would have been singing a different tune. I don't need Krugman to tell me about Fannie/Freddie. They had unlimited ability to buy loans (thanks to Congress and Frank) with little oversight. Banks felt safe lending to risky borrowers and then turning around and selling the loan to the GSE's; no risky loan....no problem!


Rather than engage in a slanging match about Frank, Kennedy, and Kerry -- about whom your comments are non-responsive -- let's look at some *facts* about the housing bubble. I quote Professor Krugman (Nov. 17, 2008):



> Some readers have asked for data showing that Fannie and Freddie did not play a key role in the housing bubble. Mark Thoma has a good picture, link here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

scwtlover said:


> Rather than engage in a slanging match about Frank, Kennedy, and Kerry -- about whom your comments are non-responsive -- let's look at some *facts* about the housing bubble. I quote Professor Krugman (Nov. 17, 2008):


stop posting reality based "facts" by well regarded "experts" (who we all know are part of the alfred nobel obama librul-commiesocialnazi consiparcy to tarnish the bush legacy). anything you need to know about the financial crisis can be learned from sean hannity.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

a4audi08 said:


> stop posting reality based "facts" by well regarded "experts" (who we all know are part of the alfred nobel obama librul-commiesocialnazi consiparcy to tarnish the bush legacy). anything you need to know about the financial crisis can be learned from sean hannity.


Okay, I'll bite. What is a sean hannity?

Buzz


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

a4audi08 said:


> stop posting reality based "facts" by well regarded "experts" (who we all know are part of the alfred nobel obama librul-commiesocialnazi consiparcy to tarnish the bush legacy). anything you need to know about the financial crisis can be learned from sean hannity.


Peccari


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> You pose a false dichotomy. We need not choose between anarchy and tyranny. In all events, as citizens of a representative democracy, we enjoy, as that great Republican President Abraham Lincoln put it, "government by the people." Indeed our system of laws has been referred to as "those wise restraints that make us free."
> 
> Nor is it self-evident that the principles that ought to govern a (well-regulated) economy are the same principles that ought to govern our polity.


I don't believe I was condoning anarchy. And yes, we are citizens of a federal republic, but as we allow the leviathan to substitute its wisdom over the collective wisdom of the people it will only be a matter of time. Dabbling with liberalism sounds like a good time and those advocating it can pat themselves on the back for their seeming "progressivism", but as we slowly erode away our traditions and push from our collective consciousness the ancient foundations of our society, where will we turn when our cleverness fails us?


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> I don't believe I was condoning anarchy. And yes, we are citizens of a federal republic, but as we allow the leviathan to substitute its wisdom over the collective wisdom of the people it will only be a matter of time. Dabbling with liberalism sounds like a good time and those advocating it can pat themselves on the back for their seeming "progressivism", but as we slowly erode away our traditions and push from our collective consciousness the ancient foundations of our society, where will we turn when our cleverness fails us?


Shall acceptance of a contract be effective on receipt by the offeror or placing in the mail?

What shall the speed limit be in particular places? Shall we even have speed limits?

These are only some of the questions that cannot be decided by freely acting individuals. A government must decide, and the only question is how democratic that government will be.

We live as part of a society. That entails obligations. In a democratic society it also entails rights. The kind of society for which you seem to pine never existed. Nor could it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> Shall acceptance of a contract be effective on receipt by the offeror or placing in the mail?
> 
> What shall the speed limit be in particular places? Shall we even have speed limits?
> 
> ...


I'm speaking to a more fundamental issue. Of course government must exist. Without it we are mere brutes. Government is a distinguishing feature of a civilized peoples.

My question is do we want our society to define government or the government to define our society. Does our government spring from centuries of natural evolution or the whims of the moment. With respect to Obama, his instinct seems to be that it is government that defines the society. It is through government that societal ills are addressed. It is through the coercive power of government that an arbitrary equality is mandated (spread the wealth and taxes are patriotic).


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> Shall acceptance of a contract be effective on receipt by the offeror or placing in the mail?
> 
> What shall the speed limit be in particular places? Shall we even have speed limits?
> 
> ...


If only the modern State confined itself to proclaiming the rules of contract-creation and speed limits!

(We'll set aside, for the moment, the fact that the Western body of law concerning contracts was created by private merchants several centuries before that body of law was co-opted by civil authorities, which in turn was several centuries before the existence of the modern idea of the nation-state; or that many local governments are realizing that the conventional approach of implementing arbitrary, codified state-mandated decrees like speed limits and traffic lights cause more traffic fatalities, which by the way add up to about 100 dead people per day in these United States.)

No, the primary problem with your version of government lies not so much in the areas of contract definitions or traffic rules. The problem is the price-fixing, the subsidies, the artificial barriers to entry, the bailouts, the special favors to insiders, the sponsored monopolies, the regulations that favor established companies and punish small ones and start-ups, the protectionism, the unionism, the loan guarantees, the artificially expanded credit, the corporate welfare, the obscene waste and inefficiency (at best) in every government construction project and enterprise, etc.

And that's before we address the calls from both Left and Right for even more economic intervention by the State, in the form of wholesale take-over via nationalization of huge sectors of the economy.

Yes, give me a government that only concerns itself with defining the mailbox rule for contracts. I'd still fight to find a way to make such a government even less intrusive, but I'd be relatively happy nonetheless.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

M6Classic said:


> Okay, I'll bite. What is a sean hannity?
> 
> Buzz


Sean Hannity is from Hannity and Colmes.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Howard said:


> Sean Hannity is from Hannity and Colmes.


Sounds like a Vaudeville team.

Buzz


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Sounds like a Vaudeville team.
> 
> Buzz


Given what a huge liberal Colmes is, I can see why you would think that. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Sounds like a Vaudeville team.
> 
> Buzz


So you _have_ seen them!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I cringe to think of either of them singing or dancing, although they actually can both handle a bit of comedy. (I'm talking the intentional zinger regardless of whose politics you like.) 

They are fairly good at what they do even if you don't like the politics. Most of the polarized folks will actually agree with one and disagree with the other. I find both of them occasionally make good points and both are capable of being rabidly partisan (although Sean seems to enjoy those partisan moments more than Alan.)


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm speaking to a more fundamental issue. Of course government must exist. Without it we are mere brutes. Government is a distinguishing feature of a civilized peoples.
> 
> My question is do we want our society to define government or the government to define our society. Does our government spring from centuries of natural evolution or the whims of the moment. With respect to Obama, his instinct seems to be that it is government that defines the society. It is through government that societal ills are addressed. It is through the coercive power of government that an arbitrary equality is mandated (spread the wealth and taxes are patriotic).


1. Society should define the government. Put otherwise, our polity should be democratic.

2. Neither. Our government springs from the Constitution, a man-made construct. The Constitution was made possible by the Revolution (not evolution), a/k/a the War of Independence. The framers of the Constitution were men of their time (moment?), influenced by a range of British thinking about society and government. See generally, Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

3. I see no evidence that President-elect Obama believes "that it is government that defines the society." His history as a community organizer, as well as the nature of his presidential campaign, tells me the opposite.

4. If, as in a democratic society is the case, government represents and reflects society, or at least a political majority of society, then addressing societal ills is a proper governmental function (which does not exclude space for individual and associational voluntary action).

5. Nothing I heard or read from President-elect Obama suggests that he aims at an equality of economic outcomes, arbitrary or otherwise. On the other hand, in my opinion. a democratic capitalist society benefits from government policies that promote a greater measure of egalitarianism, and especially an equality of life-chances, than we currently enjoy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> 3.* I see no evidence that President-elect Obama believes "that it is government that defines the society." *His history as a community organizer, as well as the nature of his presidential campaign, tells me the opposite.
> 
> 5.* Nothing I heard or read from President-elect Obama suggests that he aims at an equality of economic outcomes, arbitrary or otherwise.* On the other hand, in my opinion. a democratic capitalist society benefits from government policies that promote a greater measure of egalitarianism, and especially an equality of life-chances, than we currently enjoy.


In his own words:


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> So you _have_ seen them!


No, I am afraid that I still am unfamiliar with their act...where can I see them?

Buzz


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

Phinn said:


> Yes, give me a government that only concerns itself with defining the mailbox rule for contracts. I'd still fight to find a way to make such a government even less intrusive, but I'd be relatively happy nonetheless.


It's a slippery slope. Recognizing the need for governmental regulation of the economy, as entailed, e.g., by the the mailbox rule, laws and courts to enforce contracts, etc., the question becomes, not whether or not we have governmental regulation, but what kind? how much? and, who decides?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> It's a slippery slope. Recognizing the need for governmental regulation of the economy, as entailed, e.g., by the the mailbox rule, laws and courts to enforce contracts, etc., the question becomes, not whether or not we have governmental regulation, but what kind? how much? and, who decides?


I don't recognize the "need" for governmental regulation of the economy, as entailed by anything. Therefore, your questions are meaningless.

In any event, this is not a "slippery slope" situation. A slippery slope is a metaphor for saying that what is at the top of the slope is not fundamentally different from what's at the bottom. That's not true, even if you accept the notion that a government can "regulate the economy" (which I do not).

Here's why: There is a fundamental difference between "regulation" and economic interference. _Regulation_ (as it means in the Constitution, for example) means simply to regularize, i.e., to make various _procedures_ more uniform, more predictable and consistent. Defining the sometimes fuzzy boundary between the existence and non-existence of a contract, particularly in weird scenarios, is mere regulation -- it makes the practice of forming contracts consistent and therefore predictable, so that parties making contracts can better know when they have (or have not) made a contract. Such procedural rules favor no one, and therefore favor no political faction, _ex ante_.

In contrast, governmental interference, like the kind I listed (and the kinds you favor) is entirely different. Every form of economic interference on that list, often *incorrectly *(and deceitfully, I might add) labeled as "regulation" by Statists and Leftists (but I repeat myself) is a way of achieving something far beyond mere consistency of procedure. They are all ways of concentrating economic benefits in the hands of a select group of insiders, while diffusing the costs thereof onto everyone else.

Get it? Concentrated benefits. Diffuse costs.

Who gets the benefits of price fixing, special tax treatment, union laws, subsidies, monopolies and all the rest? Political supporters. They are all enacted for friends, cronies, contributors, bribe-payers, etc. And they all harm everyone else.

This type of governmental interference in the economy violates our fundamental human rights, is unconstitutional, and should be recognized as such by the criminals posing as our current government.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> These folks are the reason George W. Bush got elected twice, and how John McCain got 47% of the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really? I don't think there are enough of them to make a difference.

The top one is maybe pretend Pentecostal, certainly not real Pentecostal. The lower one is not my kind of Church. That is quite amazing the old lady hasn't been bitten during 60-70+ years of snake handling. Nolan, how many years would you last without gitting bitten?


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

Phinn said:


> I don't recognize the "need" for governmental regulation of the economy, as entailed by anything. Therefore, your questions are meaningless.
> 
> In any event, this is not a "slippery slope" situation. A slippery slope is a metaphor for saying that what is at the top of the slope is not fundamentally different from what's at the bottom. That's not true, even if you accept the notion that a government can "regulate the economy" (which I do not).
> 
> ...


1. You misunderstand both "slippery slope" as I used it and in its technical sense. To the extent my informal use of the term may have contributed to your confusion, I apologize. In logic, "slippery slope" is the fallacious argument that one thing necessarily leads to another: if you choose to take advantage of casual Friday to go without a jacket and tie, then inevitably you'll end up dressing like a **** on a daily basis. This is a fallacy because restraint is possible: you need not take the next step.

Writing informally, I did not intend this kind of (fallacious) argument. Nevertheless, on reflection, I should have taken the time to phrase it differently.

The meaning I intended to convey is that accepting society's democratic right, through our governmental institutions, to regulate when, all else being equal, acceptance of a proposed contract becomes effective is inconsistent with the notion that government has no legitimate role in regulating economic affairs. This does *not* mean that any and every regulation should, or will, be enacted. That would be the "slippery slope" fallacy in its pure form.

2. Your definition of "regulation" is idiosyncratic. As applied to the Constitution it's simply wrong, at least if one accepts that in trying to discern the Constitution's original meaning and the principles that underlie the text. If one looks, for example, at the economic policies pursued by George Washington (via Alexander Hamilton) and Thomas Jefferson, one won't see a government that merely "regularized" certain rules. Nor was this the limited practice of our early state governments.

3. How you fantasized that I support, or my position entails, such things as government price-fixing or bribery, is beyond me. I do not; my position does not. To suggest, indeed, is to commit the logical fallacy of the slippery slope.

4. Your suggestion of deceitfulness ill-becomes a participant in our discussions. It reeks of the demagoguery that makes up so much of contemporary right-wing talk radio and television.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

M6Classic said:


> No, I am afraid that I still am unfamiliar with their act...where can I see them?
> 
> Buzz


On The Business Channel.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> No, I am afraid that I still am unfamiliar with their act...where can I see them?
> 
> Buzz


Faux News.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

scwtlover said:


> Faux News.


Ohhhh...now I get it. Not that I am going to catch it, mind you, but I do get it. Thanks, Scwtlover.

Buzz


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> Ohhhh...now I get it. Not that I am going to catch it, mind you, but I do get it. Thanks, Scwtlover.
> 
> Buzz


You're welcome.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> 1. You misunderstand both "slippery slope" as I used it and in its technical sense. To the extent my informal use of the term may have contributed to your confusion, I apologize. In logic, "slippery slope" is the fallacious argument that one thing necessarily leads to another: if you choose to take advantage of casual Friday to go without a jacket and tie, then inevitably you'll end up dressing like a **** on a daily basis. This is a fallacy because restraint is possible: you need not take the next step.
> 
> Writing informally, I did not intend this kind of (fallacious) argument. Nevertheless, on reflection, I should have taken the time to phrase it differently.
> 
> ...


1. You misunderstand both me and the nature of a slippery slope argument. I was referring to slippery slope in the sense of the abstract concept of what is acceptable or justified -- it generally posits that if A (at the top of the slope) is deemed to be justified, then B (at the bottom of the slope) will also be deemed justified. It generally relies on the proposition that there is no real distinction between A and B, such that one could not justify A while still refusing to justify B. It's a variation on the age-old idea of moral equivalence. You, however, are apparently using the term in a more concrete, behavioral sense. But don't feel too badly. Abstractions are difficult for many people.

Your proposition is that if one admits the propriety of government defining the rules for the existence of a contract, then one necessarily also admits that government may, at least in theory, justly control, interfere, dominate, dictate or abolish any behavior of an economic nature performed by anyone at any time anywhere. This is patently stupid.

2. These numbered paragraphs are silly, but if they help you keep track of concepts, then so be it. In any event, the definition of _regulation_ I gave is not idiosyncratic. I am not surprised you find the definition unusual, since several centuries of intentional misuse of the term, for the cynical gain of political power, has resulted in a few bizarre distortions of its meaning. I am also not surprised that you cite Alexander Hamilton, for crying out loud, since he was the miscreant who invented many of the lies, distortions, and patterns of abuses that were picked up by other miscreants, statists, criminals and other beasts who have occupied offices in the US government. He is the ur-statist, the original liar in the pantheon of Constitutional framers. Notice how _regulation _and _regular _share a similar root. Extrapolate. _Regulation_ simply does not mean the power to control, interfere, dominate, dictate or abolish any behavior of an economic nature performed by anyone at any time anywhere. Sell that crap somewhere else.

3. You really don't get the whole slippery slope concept.

4. I'm not right wing. Right wingers like quoting Hamilton, for example.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Phinn said:


> You really don't get the whole slippery slope concept.


No, sir, it is you who does not get it.

You have twisted the metaphor to mean something completly different from it's accepted usage. An example of slippery slope would be for me to believe that if you are confused as to what a slippery slope is, then perhaps you are confused on your other points as well.
​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> Faux News.


OH! That Jon Stewart show, that all the kids think is real?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Aside from 'british thinking' our constitution was framed by men who encountered the great Iroqouis Confederacy. Contrary to history, many people from day one found many eastern woodland indian societies far more enlightened in the treatment of women, escaped slaves ( white and black) and religosity.
Slippery slopes are readily identified by a brown, viscuous substance that tends to roll downhill, like manners when people worry to much about events that tend to produce said substance.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

Phinn said:


> [Please see below.]


1. Your own words contradict you. In your more recent post, you write:



> I was referring to slippery slope in the sense of the abstract concept of what is acceptable or justified -- it generally posits that if A (at the top of the slope) is deemed to be justified, then B (at the bottom of the slope) will also be deemed justified.


*But this is what you wrote in the comment to which I was replying:*



> A slippery slope is a metaphor for saying that what is at the top of the slope is not fundamentally different from what's at the bottom.


Here, however, is the of the (fallacious) "slippery slope" argument:



> Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we'll be doing something that we don't want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn't do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.


Your gratuitous slur -- "But don't feel too badly. Abstractions are difficult for many people." -- once again indicates a gladatorial approach inconsistent with civil discourse.

2.


> Your proposition is that if one admits the propriety of government defining the rules for the existence of a contract, then one necessarily also admits that government may, at least in theory, justly control, interfere, dominate, dictate or abolish any behavior of an economic nature performed by anyone at any time anywhere. This is patently stupid.


*You misrepresent my position, attributing a "proposition" to me that inconsistent with what I actually wrote:*



> The meaning I intended to convey is that accepting society's democratic right, through our governmental institutions, to regulate when, all else being equal, acceptance of a proposed contract becomes effective is inconsistent with the notion that government has no legitimate role in regulating economic affairs. This does *not* mean that any and every regulation should, or will, be enacted. That would be the "slippery slope" fallacy in its pure form.


3.


> These numbered paragraphs are silly, but if they help you keep track of concepts, then so be it. In any event, the definition of _regulation_ I gave is not idiosyncratic. I am not surprised you find the definition unusual, since several centuries of intentional misuse of the term, for the cynical gain of political power, has resulted in a few bizarre distortions of its meaning. I am also not surprised that you cite Alexander Hamilton, for crying out loud, since he was the miscreant who invented many of the lies, distortions, and patterns of abuses that were picked up by other miscreants, statists, criminals and other beasts who have occupied offices in the US government. He is the ur-statist, the original liar in the pantheon of Constitutional framers. Notice how _regulation _and _regular _share a similar root. Extrapolate. _Regulation_ simply does not mean the power to control, interfere, dominate, dictate or abolish any behavior of an economic nature performed by anyone at any time anywhere. Sell that crap somewhere else.


Re: numbering paragraphs. What can I do? I am a bear of very little brain.

As for the meaning of "regulation," or "regulate," it is not "consistency of procedure.

First, here's the primary Merriam-Webster definition of "regulate":



> 1 a*:* to govern or direct according to rule b (1)*:* to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2)*:* to make regulations for or concerning <_regulate_ the industries of a country>


This is the sense in which "regulate" and "regulation" are used in a legal context.

Second, your aspersions against Hamilton ignore the fact that I cited him, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson in response to your (mistaken) assertion that "Regulation (as it means in the Constitution, for example) means simply to regularize." In addition to departing from accepted definitions of the word, you also ignore, or disparage, the original meaning of the Constitution and its principles. You're welcome to do so -- I'm no fan of the Electoral College -- but not at the same time trying to cloak yourself in the Constitution.

Third, your equation of "regulate" with "regular" is a mistaken folk etymology. "Regulate" traces back to the Latin for "law." "Regular" traces back to the Latin for straightedge.

"Regulate":



> Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin _regulatus,_ past participle of _regulare,_ from Latin _regula_ rule Date: 15th century


"Regular":



> Middle English _reguler,_ from Anglo-French, from Late Latin _regularis_ regular, from Latin, of a bar, from _regula_ rule - more at rule Date: 14th century


And here's the etymology of "rule":



> Etymology: Middle English _reule,_ from Anglo-French, from Latin _regula_ straightedge, rule, from _regere_ to keep straight, direct - more at right Date: 13th century


4. I don't care whether you're left, right, center, or off the map. That's your business. What I do care about is your mistaken arguments and the incivility of your discourse.

5. Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> OH! That Jon Stewart show, that all the kids think is real?


Perhaps you've overlooked the fact that Jon Stewart's The Daily Show appears on Comedy Central. That said, IMHO, he and Stephen Colbert are in closer touch with reality than O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and their ilk.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> Perhaps you've overlooked the fact that Jon Stewart's The Daily Show appears on Comedy Central. That said, IMHO, he and Stephen Colbert are in closer touch with reality than O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and their ilk.


I think who is in touch with reality better is a matter of some difference of opinion. And yes, Stewart is on the Comedy Channel. Which makes the fact that millions of people list it as one of their primary sources of news, that much sadder. And funnier. 



> A poll released earlier this year by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 21 percent of people aged 18 to 29 cited "The Daily Show" and "Saturday Night Live" as a place where they regularly learned presidential campaign news.





> Nicole Vernon, a 24-year-old bartender from New York City, said she finds much of television news "silly."
> 
> *Stewart, she said, "keeps it very truthful and straightforward."*


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> I think who is in touch with reality better is a matter of some difference of opinion. And yes, Stewart is on the Comedy Channel. Which makes the fact that millions of people list it as one of their primary sources of news, that much sadder. And funnier.


I agree that "who is in touch with reality is a matter of some difference of opinion." That said, as one whose primary news sources are The Economist, The New York Times, and NPR, I would say that, on the occasions I have watched him, Jon Stewart's satire generally is in closer touch with reality than, e.g., the talk mongers on Faux News. In all events, IMHO, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are better sources of reality-based news than, e.g., Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

scwtlover said:


> I agree that "who is in touch with reality is a matter of some difference of opinion." That said, as one whose primary news sources are The Economist, The New York Times, and NPR, I would say that, on the occasions I have watched him, Jon Stewart's satire generally is in closer touch with reality than, e.g., the talk mongers on Faux News. In all events, IMHO, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are better sources of reality-based news than, e.g., Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.


As someone that reads those, and more, such as the WSJ and FT, I would give them about equal reality base. They just come from different points on the political spectrum, so I would assume a guy that finds the NYT and NPR as an attractive news source, but not the WSJ, Stewart would tend to appeal to you.

The sad thing is, again, that nearly 1/4 of young adults find two comedy shows to be their major source of political news.


----------

