The Daily Show Discusses Obama's Elitism
Man... thank goodness for the writers of The Daily Show. If ever sarcasm was necessary to drive home the truth about our media and political situation, it is now.
This is a classic segment.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
That oughtta save him. Whew, thanks, Jon. Crisis averted...
Jake,
Seriously though, you don't see an agenda with everyone out attacking the guy over harmless comments? You do see the slant, right? I mean, let's forget about whether or not you agree with the slant... I just want you to admit it's there.
-DT
I didn't find the comments "harmless," Dino. If you're going to run for the "man of the people" party nomination, you best not get caught crapping on the littles.
That said, Obama's remarks are not surprising, given as they were in supposed confidence.
The worst thing to happen to the Dem party was the takeover by the academic left, starting with the McGovern candidacy, when the counter-culture Marxists finally broke down the door and took the seat for there own. Ever since then, the party has been run by people with thinly veiled contempt for traditional values, religion (esp. Christianity), private property, and second amendment rights.
You guys have run wonk after wonk for the last thirty five years, and have only been able to get two guys in the door -- by disguising their wonkishness under a veneer of "reg'lar guy." (And both wins got a "helping hand" from Watergate and Ross Perot, respectively).
"Out of touch" is accurate, unfortunately. When are you guys going to figure out that radical leftism, no matter how cosmeticized, can't win.
BTW -- "Bartender, your gheyest whiskey please," was lol funny.
jake,
I disagree about the whole "leftist" remark thing... Clinton/Gore were pretty friendly to the business community and the economy as a whole.
The Democratic party and the Republican party aren't as different as they need to be... the Republicans have been taken over by the religious right, so yeah, the Dems should be moving to the secular left if they're smart and want to win.
Meanwhile, BOTH parties have no business being too tied to any damn religion...
And again, I disagree that Obama's comments were "crapping" on the little people. That's what the media is saying about it, sure, but then their agenda has been exposed, so who gives a shit what they say?
-DT
That's how I read his comments. Like there was something they OUGHT to be turning to instead of "clinging" to their tired old religions, guns, anti-traded sentiments (this was a quizzler, I thought anti-trade was part of his platform? Different audience I guess, that one was for the rubes), and of course, the old saw "people different from them."
It's extremely patronizing to say, basically, that if it were not for those lame barriers to understanding, all those country bumpkins would be jumping on the Big Gummint bandwagon.
And as for your exception, I think I noted that Bubbah got elected, as he was the least of the academic leftists (that's more his wife). I actually give him strong credit for NAFTA.
Yeah Jake... Obama is way off with his bitter comments. Sure, I wouldn't be bitter if my government enforced trade agreements that shipped my job overseas. Nah... I wouldn't be bitter because I can't put food on the table or have to work 2-3 jobs to do so. Yeah, Obama's way off. Yeah... to say that folks are bitter at the way their government has wrecked their lives would be such an overstatement.
Seriously... there are so many other things to rant against Obama (if you choose to do so) than this.
I really still don't understand what the fuss is about. He simply said there are folks who are angry about losing their jobs and turn to God, guns and anti-immigrant sentimentality because of it. About the only wrong statement their is including guns (doesn't make sense).
Obama will come out of this stronger for sure. I just recently said to some folks that despite being an Obama supporter now... I would vote for Clinton is she got the nomination. As of right now... I would not. She's such a politician and absolutely doesn't even try to convince folks otherwise. It will be wonderful when she falls short and all her little tricks fail to produce the magic prize. Sweet victory.
oonr7,
Agree about Hillary 100%. She should have stepped off in February. Fuck her.
jake,
Look, what he's saying, is that people need to trust and believe that the government is a good thing. When they don't, it leads to all kinds of discord. He wasn't making any value judgements about religion or guns... what kind of politician, running for president, would be stupid enough to do that?
-DT
Dino, that's an even scarier interpretation.
Oona -- I don't speak whatever that is you were writing there. Am I to understand that "gov't enforced trade agreements" are the source of job losses?
That's an interesting theory, but puts paid to my theory that most Dems wouldn't know an economics textbook from a cookbook.
As for the rest, the whole commentary is patronizing from letter one, including assuming that people from "X" are embittered in the first place. One has to ask -- "More or less embittered than the people from your home district, Senator?" Do they turn to religion to escape their bitterness as well?
jake: It's called English. You know... with commas, periods, sarcasm. Now, maybe I can write on a 3rd grade level so you can follow along?
Do you not understand what trade agreements are? Here's a hint... they're with other countries.
Still with me or is this English just confusing you? Also, just so your small, Republican brain isn't strained too much, here are some links to them:
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/ftaa.asp
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/NAFTA/nafta.asp
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/CAFTA/cafta.asp
Do you not understand how US jobs have been outsourced outside of the US because of these agreements (and other things)? Here's a nutshell - lower labor wages. Bam!
And no (pay attention here Jakey), I'm limiting the scope of my rebuttal to your insane agreement to the criticism of Obama's comments. The workers that Obama was talking about were from a certain area of the country - he listed Pennsylvania and Illinois. Yeah, that's right, he mentioned his own district Jake. These areas, among others, have been hardest hit by these agreements because of their industrial background. Cheaper goods and labor from foreign countries means less jobs Jake.
Apparently, you need everything repeated to you twice so let me repeat: Obama was talking about these folks. Was he generalizing? Of course, but I'm going to take a wild guess that the majority of folks who lost their jobs as a result of these agreements and outsourcing are pissed.
As for your 'Dems wouldn't know an economics textbook from a cookbook' comment. Wow... now who's generalizing???? But it was funny.
ATTENTION... SARCASM ON IT'S WAY: Yes, the Republicans are great at economics. So well versed. Yeah, this country has done so well economically under Republican leadership. Dude, it takes Dems to clean up the Republicans economics mess. Bill did it and we'll have to do it again once McCain is stomped.
Did you understand all that Jakey? I tried not to use big words so you wouldn't be flustered.
Let's hear more of your 'economics elitist' crap.
here's some more reading Jakey... take it slow, don't want you convulsing with all the information.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147
Guess these guys don't know what they're talking about either. And, uh, I wouldn't have to spell out what I meant by 'trade agreements' if I had a conversation with them.
Oona --
Thanks for confirming your cluelessness. Get a couple of textbooks, start with Econ 101. Skip over to the index and look up "David Ricardo," and "Comparative advantage."
That ought to give you a good head start on figuring out why in the heck our unemployment levels are so low and our standard of living so high, even though all of those low value added industrial jobs have departed to lower value added labor countries.
But probably not. As I've said. "Clueless."
Be sure to tackle the basics first before repeating the left wing propaganda organ stuff.
Then they can't fool you as easily.
You guys are like, a left wing/right wing blog just waiting to happen.
Hannity and Colmes for the Internet!
God, the Daily Show is great...
-DT
Always Fact check your sources, especially when they are in the bag for Dinosaur Labor.
The laws of economics did not change upon the publishing of Karl Marx's seminal works.
Much to your chagrin.
Jake,
Who are you kidding? There are no facts anymore... only political parties and their spin machines.
Just choose your side and find your fact. Works for XOM.
-DT
jake... you're blinded by your own ignorance. My point is that these trades agreements have contributed to job losses, especially in the areas Obama spoke about. That's not the only reason for job losses, but a good reason.
Your factcheck article means nothing. Just states that Obama may have distorted job loss numbers. That doesn't mean there weren't job losses.
I think you're trying to prove now that you know more about economics than I do. Have at it nerd. I could really care less. But since you seem so intent on distributing facts and making others think they don't know as much (typical Republican style) than the 'fact' of what Obama said is true. Job losses created by government actions has left folks in Penn. towns bitter. Can you dispute that these trade agreements haven't indeed lead to job losses in Penn.? When you do... then we can talk. Otherwise, continue jerking off to the slimed down Limbaugh pics.
Post a Comment