Also, she's apparently going to be on The Colbert Report Thursday night. Why, Stephen, why?
Two things - first off, can you imagine any other person (other than Obama) who would garner higher ratings for the show? Secondly, do you really think that it's Colbert himself who lines up who comes on the show? *shrug* It doesn't bother me, particularly.
Actually I'd think he does have some pretty significant say.
I gotta say, I can't even see how the 'bitter' comment is a gaffe, let alone a controversy. Unless it's in the "don't tell people bad things that are true" category. Most people who rail against gay marriage probably don't even know any gay people, it's an issue completely unrelated to any concerns in their life but they've latched onto it and stuff like that for, well, probably a number of bad reasons, but the feeling that it's something they can have an impact on may be one of them.
So long as it isn't just a guided stump speech, like she did with Jon on the eve of Ohio, I'll be looking forward to it. If it's essentially just a big photo-op with sloppy blowjobs then :v:. I can watch the 24/7's for that sort of fluff.
Given what Colbert did right in front of Bush, I'd imagine it won't be nearly as softball as Stewart was. Colbert plays the game a bit differently.
Also, she's apparently going to be on The Colbert Report Thursday night. Why, Stephen, why?
Two things - first off, can you imagine any other person (other than Obama) who would garner higher ratings for the show? Secondly, do you really think that it's Colbert himself who lines up who comes on the show? *shrug* It doesn't bother me, particularly.
Actually I'd think he does have some pretty significant say.
I gotta say, I can't even see how the 'bitter' comment is a gaffe, let alone a controversy. Unless it's in the "don't tell people bad things that are true" category. Most people who rail against gay marriage probably don't even know any gay people, it's an issue completely unrelated to any concerns in their life but they've latched onto it and stuff like that for, well, probably a number of bad reasons, but the feeling that it's something they can have an impact on may be one of them.
The bitter part wasn't the gaffe, and he's lucky that the Clinton's didn't realize that.
I haven't watched the show in ages but I would imagine the Colbert character must have a collection of knives he's been saving for the Clintons. He has to do something to her.
So long as it isn't just a guided stump speech, like she did with Jon on the eve of Ohio, I'll be looking forward to it. If it's essentially just a big photo-op with sloppy blowjobs then :v:. I can watch the 24/7's for that sort of fluff.
Given what Colbert did right in front of Bush, I'd imagine it won't be nearly as softball as Stewart was. Colbert plays the game a bit differently.
Nah it'll be another let her stump, let her say her bullshit show. The daily show let her stump and so will colbert.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So long as it isn't just a guided stump speech, like she did with Jon on the eve of Ohio, I'll be looking forward to it. If it's essentially just a big photo-op with sloppy blowjobs then :v:. I can watch the 24/7's for that sort of fluff.
Given what Colbert did right in front of Bush, I'd imagine it won't be nearly as softball as Stewart was. Colbert plays the game a bit differently.
Yeah, him being able to stay in character and such should prove to make it much better than anything TDS can accomplish. It should be pretty good, but nowhere near what Obama would likely bring to the table. Hopefully this'll force his hand to appear and get a bump of his own.
So long as it isn't just a guided stump speech, like she did with Jon on the eve of Ohio, I'll be looking forward to it. If it's essentially just a big photo-op with sloppy blowjobs then :v:. I can watch the 24/7's for that sort of fluff.
Given what Colbert did right in front of Bush, I'd imagine it won't be nearly as softball as Stewart was. Colbert plays the game a bit differently.
Nah it'll be another let her stump, let her say her bullshit show. The daily show let her stump and so will colbert.
So long as it isn't just a guided stump speech, like she did with Jon on the eve of Ohio, I'll be looking forward to it. If it's essentially just a big photo-op with sloppy blowjobs then :v:. I can watch the 24/7's for that sort of fluff.
Given what Colbert did right in front of Bush, I'd imagine it won't be nearly as softball as Stewart was. Colbert plays the game a bit differently.
Yeah, him being able to stay in character and such should prove to make it much better than anything TDS can accomplish. It should be pretty good, but nowhere near what Obama would likely bring to the table. Hopefully this'll force his hand to appear and get a bump of his own.
I think I read somewhere that Michelle is on Colbert tonight.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So long as it isn't just a guided stump speech, like she did with Jon on the eve of Ohio, I'll be looking forward to it. If it's essentially just a big photo-op with sloppy blowjobs then :v:. I can watch the 24/7's for that sort of fluff.
I'm kinda hoping she does the same interview that Jane Fonda did.
So long as it isn't just a guided stump speech, like she did with Jon on the eve of Ohio, I'll be looking forward to it. If it's essentially just a big photo-op with sloppy blowjobs then :v:. I can watch the 24/7's for that sort of fluff.
Given what Colbert did right in front of Bush, I'd imagine it won't be nearly as softball as Stewart was. Colbert plays the game a bit differently.
Nah it'll be another let her stump, let her say her bullshit show. The daily show let her stump and so will colbert.
I wouldn't be too sure, but we'll see.
I remember before the daily show interview people were hoping Stewart would skewer her, he didn't do jack shit. Same with Colbert, he'll let her stump her points, thank her for showing up, maybe say one comedic thing.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also, she's apparently going to be on The Colbert Report Thursday night. Why, Stephen, why?
Two things - first off, can you imagine any other person (other than Obama) who would garner higher ratings for the show? Secondly, do you really think that it's Colbert himself who lines up who comes on the show? *shrug* It doesn't bother me, particularly.
Actually I'd think he does have some pretty significant say.
I gotta say, I can't even see how the 'bitter' comment is a gaffe, let alone a controversy. Unless it's in the "don't tell people bad things that are true" category. Most people who rail against gay marriage probably don't even know any gay people, it's an issue completely unrelated to any concerns in their life but they've latched onto it and stuff like that for, well, probably a number of bad reasons, but the feeling that it's something they can have an impact on may be one of them.
The bitter part wasn't the gaffe, and he's lucky that the Clinton's didn't realize that.
They've figured it out, but too late.
Obama hit them on the "what do you mean they're not Bitter" angle, and Singer's response was that he's unhappy that Obama is trying to re frame the discussion to focus on the Bitter part and not the Clinging part. Which is great, since it's the Clinton campaign trying to change to the right angle of attack without copping to having hit him on the wrong part to start. Ready on day 3 to try day 1 again.
So long as it isn't just a guided stump speech, like she did with Jon on the eve of Ohio, I'll be looking forward to it. If it's essentially just a big photo-op with sloppy blowjobs then :v:. I can watch the 24/7's for that sort of fluff.
Given what Colbert did right in front of Bush, I'd imagine it won't be nearly as softball as Stewart was. Colbert plays the game a bit differently.
Nah it'll be another let her stump, let her say her bullshit show. The daily show let her stump and so will colbert.
I wouldn't be too sure, but we'll see.
I remember before the daily show interview people were hoping Stewart would skewer her, he didn't do jack shit. Same with Colbert, he'll let her stump her points, thank her for showing up, maybe say one comedic thing.
Er, at very least he is going to say something ridiculous at her expense. Like that zombie shtick of his where she keeps coming even if you chop off her limbs.
I think that Clinton is just deluded. She has convinced herself that she's the only hope for the democratic party. She thinks Obama will crumble come the general election. Her problem is that all the real barometers for success (polling/electoral maps vs McCain, ability to weather a controversy) don't agree with this gut feeling. But she still knows that she'd be the best, so she goes about her merry way in her ultimate attempt to get bogus delegates seated an overwhelming majority of superdelegates. But without any actual logic or evidence on her side, she's left with the garbage she's been manufacturing. Useless metrics, like winning certain big states, handpicked traditional swing states, or the "popular vote." Twisting Obama's words to try and make him seem unelectable. Ignoring fundraising ability. Proclaiming that winning your strongest state is a huge victory. Trying to get bogus Michigan delegates seated.
We're seeing the sad and tortured system of someone who has started with a conclusion and worked backwards to get the evidence.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
It makes me wonder why Barack Obama isn't doing these shows. I'm thinking he's saving his "bump" for the general, on the theory that if he appears too often, he looks desperate or ties too closely to the TDS audience. On that note, maybe he just thinks he has that audience sewn up pretty well, though I think an appearance during Colbert's Pennsylvania shows would be more effective than otherwise.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
It makes me wonder why Barack Obama isn't doing these shows. I'm thinking he's saving his "bump" for the general, on the theory that if he appears too often, he looks desperate or ties too closely to the TDS audience. On that note, maybe he just thinks he has that audience sewn up pretty well, though I think an appearance during Colbert's Pennsylvania shows would be more effective than otherwise.
It's the latter portion of your post, he's been on The View and Ellen and daytime shows that old white women are watching. She's going on the late night shows that young well educated people are watching.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yeah, they are definitely targeting audiences that they need to. With no facts whatsoever to back me up*, I'd say that on average, The Daily Show/Colbert Report watchers are more pro-Obama than pro-Clinton.
*
Though, I do have the incredible fact sheet of eating my own dick if this is not true.
Yeah, that does make sense. I still hope to see Obama hit the shows come general time, though.
Actually, that puts McCain into a bind, doesn't it? Logically he'd go on TDS in the general, but his history makes that awkward. On one hand, if he goes on any more and things go well, his relation with the show looks stronger and the "he's not a conservative" remarks hit harder. On the other hand, I think Jon Stewart himself lost a lot of respect for McCain. The last few interviews were angrier on both sides; I think Jon felt a little betrayed around the time McCain started hanging out at Liberty University. I suppose the logical choice for McCain is to go on Colbert instead.
Obama could be in the same situation, though, given his relation to Fox News is even worse than it is for other Democrats.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Yeah, that does make sense. I still hope to see Obama hit the shows come general time, though.
Actually, that puts McCain into a bind, doesn't it? Logically he'd go on TDS in the general, but his history makes that awkward. On one hand, if he goes on any more and things go well, his relation with the show looks stronger and the "he's not a conservative" remarks hit harder. On the other hand, I think Jon Stewart himself lost a lot of respect for McCain. The last few interviews were angrier on both sides; I think Jon felt a little betrayed around the time McCain started hanging out at Liberty University. I suppose the logical choice for McCain is to go on Colbert instead.
Obama could be in the same situation, though, given his relation to Fox News is even worse than it is for other Democrats.
McCain has been on TDS quite a bit. Last time he got pretty much verbally abused for going back on every stand he'd ever taken. I doubt he'd do it again come the General.
Expect MTV or something vapid. He won't do Colbert. Jon writes for Colbert. The man would not survive that interview.
It's all bio-fuel really. I was studying it to see if I wanted to recommend that our town vehicles move to B-20 and it really is not the way to go - unless they start making it from algae or something.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
First, I was under the impression that biodiesel was, in general, a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline or standard diesel. Am I wrong? Nothing against you, but I get annoyed every time someone dismisses something that's environmentally friendlier just because it's not battling global warming.
Second, even if it's environmentally neutral, isn't it a good idea to move towards a fuel source that's less reliant on oil and more fuel efficient besides? Diesel engines >> gasoline engines when it comes to gas mileage, right?
I can see how if we'd need to completely restructure our economy around biodiesel how it might be a poor idea, but diesel is already a well-established technology, is the standard for many industries, and could be expanded in automobiles, too. I'm not seeing a huge reason to not go with it.
I may be late to the party, but this article sums up what people see as the downside to biofuels and its impact is on the environment. I have some other articles as counter agruments to the article and maybe I'll throw them up in a bit.
Dajian on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
It's all bio-fuel really. I was studying it to see if I wanted to recommend that our town vehicles move to B-20 and it really is not the way to go - unless they start making it from algae or something.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
First, I was under the impression that biodiesel was, in general, a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline or standard diesel. Am I wrong? Nothing against you, but I get annoyed every time someone dismisses something that's environmentally friendlier just because it's not battling global warming.
Second, even if it's environmentally neutral, isn't it a good idea to move towards a fuel source that's less reliant on oil and more fuel efficient besides? Diesel engines >> gasoline engines when it comes to gas mileage, right?
I can see how if we'd need to completely restructure our economy around biodiesel how it might be a poor idea, but diesel is already a well-established technology, is the standard for many industries, and could be expanded in automobiles, too. I'm not seeing a huge reason to not go with it.
I may be late to the party, but this article sums up what people see as the downside to biofuels and its impact is on the environment. I have some other articles as counter agruments to the article and maybe I'll throw them up in a bit.
Feel free to use that to start another thread if you wish, but please don't post them here. We already derailed the thread with that stuff for long enough.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
PHILADELPHIA -- Hillary Clinton was forced to cut her normal stump speech short when a chatty and meddlesome crowd kept her from grasping their attention. Clinton, who was addressing the Philadelphia County Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, spoke for just over five minutes, despite having the press arrive almost two hours beforehand.
The crowd never settled down during her remarks. A spokesman for Clinton denied that she cut the speech short, and told reporters that Clinton was advised by her Pennsylvania team to deliver “a short speech" given the set up of the event.
In previous party dinners, most recently in Butte, Mt., Clinton spoke for almost an hour to a crowd that seemed to be paying attention. The aide said this was a “different type†of J-J Dinner, primarily because people were not seated at tables, and were “milling around†the banquet hall.
Whether or not Clinton’s reception at the dinner had anything to do with her recent attacks on Barack Obama remains unclear. Clinton has never delivered a formal speech in such a short amount of time. The most recent abbreviated speech was back on February 15 when Clinton spoke to a crowd at a Lockheed Martin plant in Akron, Ohio. The speech lasted for just 12 minutes, with the first applause line coming 11 minutes into the speech.
The last time McCain did TDS Jon ripped him apart. So much so that it was a topic in an interview with PBS a couple days later where they asked him (Jon) what he felt seeing McCain "at a loss for words and defeated" at his probing. He tore him on his positions on troop levels in Iraq, going back on his "agents of intolerance" moniker for certain members of the Christian Right, and a whole bunch other hypocritical stances he had taken over the past year or so.
If its to score election points I doubt we'll see McCain on again soon.
I know people have wondered why I've been posing these, and it's because they sadden and bother me. I really think these people need a wakeup call, but as long as they stay inside their own little homes, they won't get that.
I know people have wondered why I've been posing these, and it's because they sadden and bother me. I really think these people need a wakeup call, but as long as they stay inside their own little homes, they won't get that.
Wow, reaching for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. That takes some chutzpah, considering that pretty much literally anything else written for them would be totally disregarded as completely insane by just about every Democratic blogger out there.
Could someone explain lobbyists in greater detail? Honestly, it's one of those things I've put off learning about for years because they sounded real boring.
Could someone explain lobbyists in greater detail? Honestly, it's one of those things I've put off learning about for years because it sounds real boring.
People pay other, typically sleezier, people to convince congress to act, not act, kill, push, bottle, or abuse a bill in such a way as to promote the interests of person 1.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
To be perfectly honest in an embarrassing way, I don't really know what lobbyists do nor how much impact their actions can have on a presidency.
Have you ever seen Thank You for Smoking? It's hilarious and you should, and it's about a tobacco lobbyist.
Essentially, people are paid to schmooze politicians - take them out for nice dinners and give them hefty donations - in order to get them to vote in favor of the business or industry the lobbyist represents. If a restrictive tobacco bill is coming down the pipe, the goal of tobacco lobbyists will be to woo a Senator or two to help vote it down.
To be perfectly honest in an embarrassing way, I don't really know what lobbyists do nor how much impact their actions can have on a presidency.
Have you ever seen Thank You for Smoking? It's hilarious and you should, and it's about a tobacco lobbyist.
Essentially, people are paid to schmooze politicians - take them out for nice dinners and give them hefty donations - in order to get them to vote in favor of the business or industry the lobbyist represents. If a restrictive tobacco bill is coming down the pipe, the goal of tobacco lobbyists will be to woo a Senator or two to help vote it down.
In addition to this, they also inform legislators about bills that they'd like to see passed and any of the nuances held within. Advocacy groups like Green Peace and MADD would have lobbyists. They're not by definition, sleazy.
The last time McCain did TDS Jon ripped him apart. So much so that it was a topic in an interview with PBS a couple days later where they asked him (Jon) what he felt seeing McCain "at a loss for words and defeated" at his probing. He tore him on his positions on troop levels in Iraq, going back on his "agents of intolerance" moniker for certain members of the Christian Right, and a whole bunch other hypocritical stances he had taken over the past year or so.
If its to score election points I doubt we'll see McCain on again soon.
It was two times ago, I think he came back and after a brief awkward we're still kinda friends right? thing they were not exactly chummy, but Jon wasn't killing him again.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Interesting that you don't see Obama's name anywhere in it.
Think it's a web only ad, because even though it's from the Obama youtube account, he doesn't approve it and you have to if it's paid for by the campaign and run on TV I think right?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Is there any way of knowing what lobbies a candidate is beholden to, specifically? If so, what lobbies have some degree of influence over Clinton and McCain?
Is there any way of knowing what lobbies a candidate is beholden to, specifically? If so, what lobbies have some degree of influence over Clinton and McCain?
Presumably, from campaign finance reports, to see who's given money.
Of course, I don't understand Federal campaign financing at all. I thought any one person could give no more than $2,000 to a candidate for an election, so I don't know how corporations can have anyone in their pocket, unless there's some slick deal where money from the corporation is given to individual people with strict agreements that those people are required to give $2,000 to the candidate.
To be perfectly honest in an embarrassing way, I don't really know what lobbyists do nor how much impact their actions can have on a presidency.
Have you ever seen Thank You for Smoking? It's hilarious and you should, and it's about a tobacco lobbyist.
Essentially, people are paid to schmooze politicians - take them out for nice dinners and give them hefty donations - in order to get them to vote in favor of the business or industry the lobbyist represents. If a restrictive tobacco bill is coming down the pipe, the goal of tobacco lobbyists will be to woo a Senator or two to help vote it down.
In addition to this, they also inform legislators about bills that they'd like to see passed and any of the nuances held within. Advocacy groups like Green Peace and MADD would have lobbyists. They're not by definition, sleazy.
MADD is about on-par with PETA for crazy-ass extremists.
Posts
Actually I'd think he does have some pretty significant say.
I gotta say, I can't even see how the 'bitter' comment is a gaffe, let alone a controversy. Unless it's in the "don't tell people bad things that are true" category. Most people who rail against gay marriage probably don't even know any gay people, it's an issue completely unrelated to any concerns in their life but they've latched onto it and stuff like that for, well, probably a number of bad reasons, but the feeling that it's something they can have an impact on may be one of them.
Given what Colbert did right in front of Bush, I'd imagine it won't be nearly as softball as Stewart was. Colbert plays the game a bit differently.
The bitter part wasn't the gaffe, and he's lucky that the Clinton's didn't realize that.
Nah it'll be another let her stump, let her say her bullshit show. The daily show let her stump and so will colbert.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, him being able to stay in character and such should prove to make it much better than anything TDS can accomplish. It should be pretty good, but nowhere near what Obama would likely bring to the table. Hopefully this'll force his hand to appear and get a bump of his own.
I wouldn't be too sure, but we'll see.
I think I read somewhere that Michelle is on Colbert tonight.
I'm kinda hoping she does the same interview that Jane Fonda did.
I remember before the daily show interview people were hoping Stewart would skewer her, he didn't do jack shit. Same with Colbert, he'll let her stump her points, thank her for showing up, maybe say one comedic thing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
They've figured it out, but too late.
Obama hit them on the "what do you mean they're not Bitter" angle, and Singer's response was that he's unhappy that Obama is trying to re frame the discussion to focus on the Bitter part and not the Clinging part. Which is great, since it's the Clinton campaign trying to change to the right angle of attack without copping to having hit him on the wrong part to start. Ready on day 3 to try day 1 again.
Er, at very least he is going to say something ridiculous at her expense. Like that zombie shtick of his where she keeps coming even if you chop off her limbs.
We're seeing the sad and tortured system of someone who has started with a conclusion and worked backwards to get the evidence.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
It's the latter portion of your post, he's been on The View and Ellen and daytime shows that old white women are watching. She's going on the late night shows that young well educated people are watching.
*
Actually, that puts McCain into a bind, doesn't it? Logically he'd go on TDS in the general, but his history makes that awkward. On one hand, if he goes on any more and things go well, his relation with the show looks stronger and the "he's not a conservative" remarks hit harder. On the other hand, I think Jon Stewart himself lost a lot of respect for McCain. The last few interviews were angrier on both sides; I think Jon felt a little betrayed around the time McCain started hanging out at Liberty University. I suppose the logical choice for McCain is to go on Colbert instead.
Obama could be in the same situation, though, given his relation to Fox News is even worse than it is for other Democrats.
McCain has been on TDS quite a bit. Last time he got pretty much verbally abused for going back on every stand he'd ever taken. I doubt he'd do it again come the General.
Expect MTV or something vapid. He won't do Colbert. Jon writes for Colbert. The man would not survive that interview.
I may be late to the party, but this article sums up what people see as the downside to biofuels and its impact is on the environment. I have some other articles as counter agruments to the article and maybe I'll throw them up in a bit.
Feel free to use that to start another thread if you wish, but please don't post them here. We already derailed the thread with that stuff for long enough.
Link.
If its to score election points I doubt we'll see McCain on again soon.
Obama labels the back and forth about his comments as a sign that the campaign is in “political silly season.”
I know people have wondered why I've been posing these, and it's because they sadden and bother me. I really think these people need a wakeup call, but as long as they stay inside their own little homes, they won't get that.
That's the first part of the interview of Stewart that occurred shortly after McCain's last appearance. Shows the important clips and so on.
new obama ad, pretty good
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
People pay other, typically sleezier, people to convince congress to act, not act, kill, push, bottle, or abuse a bill in such a way as to promote the interests of person 1.
Essentially, people are paid to schmooze politicians - take them out for nice dinners and give them hefty donations - in order to get them to vote in favor of the business or industry the lobbyist represents. If a restrictive tobacco bill is coming down the pipe, the goal of tobacco lobbyists will be to woo a Senator or two to help vote it down.
In addition to this, they also inform legislators about bills that they'd like to see passed and any of the nuances held within. Advocacy groups like Green Peace and MADD would have lobbyists. They're not by definition, sleazy.
Interesting that you don't see Obama's name anywhere in it.
It was two times ago, I think he came back and after a brief awkward we're still kinda friends right? thing they were not exactly chummy, but Jon wasn't killing him again.
Think it's a web only ad, because even though it's from the Obama youtube account, he doesn't approve it and you have to if it's paid for by the campaign and run on TV I think right?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Presumably, from campaign finance reports, to see who's given money.
Of course, I don't understand Federal campaign financing at all. I thought any one person could give no more than $2,000 to a candidate for an election, so I don't know how corporations can have anyone in their pocket, unless there's some slick deal where money from the corporation is given to individual people with strict agreements that those people are required to give $2,000 to the candidate.
They're basically the modern temperance movement.